Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

POINT OF ORDER

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I tabled two motions in the Table Office last night, about the North Wales police. Neither has appeared on the Order Paper this morning.

Madam Speaker: I am not aware of the activities of the hon. Lady last night in relation to the Table Office, but of course I will be glad to make inquiries to find out what it was all about.

Further Education (Scotland)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this debate on the very important matter of the funding of Scottish colleges of further education. Perhaps a better title for the debate would be "The underfunding of Scottish colleges of further education", because the underfunding is so serious that some colleges are rapidly approaching a crisis.
Many of the problems stem from 1993, when the Government removed Scottish colleges of further education from local education authority control. Before 1993, there was a strong element of local control and accountability, and local education authorities were able to take decisions to improve the funding of the further education colleges, taking into account local circumstances and priorities.
However, since incorporation was introduced in 1993, the 43 colleges have depended almost entirely on central Government instead of local government for funding. Since the financial year 1994–95, there has been a cut of grant in aid from £241 million to £230 million, with a further planned reduction to £211 million by the year 1998–99, making a total reduction at 1994–95 prices of £30 million or 12.5 per cent., yet there has been an increase of 23 per cent. in full-time equivalent student numbers since incorporation and an increase of 50 per cent. in students taking higher education courses in FE colleges. The Minister may tell us later that the revenue element for the current financial year increased compared with that for last year, but the extra revenue was funded by cutting the capital element.
Twenty-eight of the 43 colleges have suffered real cuts in income this year, and although the cut for any individual college has been limited to a maximum of 5 per cent.—

about 8 per cent. after taking inflation into account—there is no guarantee that there will be such a limit next year. The consequences for many colleges have been very serious. Twelve colleges suffered the maximum cuts, including some of the largest colleges in Scotland, such as Bell, Dundee, Fife and Inverness, as well as some of the smaller colleges, such as Coatbridge and Thurso. Another victim of the maximum cut is the Jewel and Esk Valley college, which suffered such a bad cut last year that the management resorted to compulsory redundancies.
The underfunding has been exacerbated by the fact that Scottish Enterprise is also cutting its training budget, which in effect will reduce the income to colleges that participate in training schemes funded by local enterprise companies.
Responsibility for student bursaries has been transferred from local education authorities to the colleges, but despite the increasing number of students the total amount for bursaries has been frozen at £45 million a year for the next three years. As a result, many students will inevitably suffer considerable hardship.
It is ironic, too, that at a time when the number of students is increasing the number of staff in many colleges is decreasing. Last year saw the first ever compulsory redundancies, and more jobs are threatened if the underfunding continues. At Falkirk college in my constituency, the college authorities have apparently run out of volunteers opting for early retirement; and the Scottish Office pension scheme for early retirers is limited to employees over the age of 50. Since incorporation, more than 100 employees, including teaching and support staff, have left Falkirk college. The financial restrictions imposed by the Government also have a limiting effect on salary negotiations. That in turn has an adverse effect on staff morale.
Education is not, however, simply a job for teachers and lecturers. Teachers' jobs are very important, of course, but what is even more important is the valuable service that teachers provide by improving the educational, training and job opportunities of students—including the 200,000 students who attend Scottish colleges of further education. If there is a significant reduction in the number of teachers, that could lead to larger class sizes, and it could have an adverse effect on the quality of education.
There is also a danger of some entire courses being discontinued, and even of the scrapping of whole areas of the curriculum. Specialist courses will be available in fewer colleges, so students will be obliged to travel further and colleges may feel obliged to drop courses whose cost per student is relatively high—for instance, in construction and engineering.
The Government have also frozen the intakes to higher education courses in FE colleges and have stopped the introduction of new higher national certificate, higher national diploma and degree courses. Yet Ministers tell us that they agree about the need to increase the number of people who are educated and vocationally trained to high standards.
This country does not compare well with our major industrial competitors in the proportion of our work force with full craft and technician qualifications. The FE colleges have a key role in providing such qualifications, which are essential to our economic and industrial regeneration. It therefore does not make economic sense to deprive the colleges of the resources to do the job.
The cuts also affect buildings maintenance and equipment, and students will find it difficult to reach their full potential if they are in oversized classes, in overcrowded classrooms or ill-equipped workshops. Later, the Minister may refer to the private finance initiative, but the PFI will not be enough to renew or replace dilapidated buildings or obsolete equipment; and some colleges may be forced to cut recurrent expenditure in order to fund essential capital projects.
The reason for the crisis facing many colleges is not just the inadequacy of the total grant in aid from the Scottish Office. There are also allegations about the unfairness of the formula used to allocate to each college its share of the grant. The total grant is divided up according to SUMs, or student units of measurement, generated by each college in the previous financial year. A SUM is defined as 40 hours of teaching delivered to a student.
Although some other factors are also taken into account, there is considerable concern that the formula does not take sufficient account of the diversity of the 43 college system. Some colleges are large, others are small. Some are in urban areas, others in small towns or rural areas. Some are polytechnics, others are virtually monotechnics. Some may have stronger community links than others.
The larger colleges complain that all 43 colleges receive the same amount of "institutional factor", irrespective of size. The institutional factor currently amounts to about £250,000 a year, which can be as much as 10 per cent. of the budget of a small college, compared with only 2 per cent. of the budget of a large one. The polytechnics complain that the formula discriminates against them because they have a greater proportion of higher education courses—for example, higher national certificate courses—which are more expensive to operate but which attract less money than further education courses under the existing formula. Yet the skills gap in this country is mainly at HNC or SVQ III and IV levels, which—ironically—are the worst funded courses in Scottish FE colleges.
The formula also discriminates against colleges in areas with low potential for assistance from the European social fund or the European regional development fund. This could amount to a difference of as much as £1 million a year between the amounts of help available for colleges of similar size.
There are also complaints about the fact that the funding is based on past student numbers, thereby limiting the opportunity to fund future developments, especially if high capital investment is required for new proposals. Such projects at Falkirk college would include biotechnology, food technology, petrochemical plant and mechatronics. The college management has set the laudable objective of becoming mid-Scotland's polytechnic by the year 2000, but Government underfunding will make it more difficult to achieve that objective.
The volatile operation of the funding formula has also been criticised. It tends to produce some large annual variations in the budgets of some colleges, so that it is quite possible for a college to make people redundant one year and take on additional staff the following year.

Obviously, that does not help with continuity or planning. Such volatility could be alleviated if the funding formula were based on the numbers of full-time equivalent students—a methodology already used by the higher education funding councils. If the core funding for each college were supplemented by development funding, that would also help with planning.
Moreover, the Government should stop the capping of higher education in those colleges, and should end the unfair anomaly that higher education courses in FE colleges attract less funding than further education courses. The funding of higher education courses should be the same in the FE colleges as in the universities, and the Government should look at the possibility of making the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council responsible for the funding of all higher education in Scotland, both in universities and in colleges of further education.
Finally, the Government should give further consideration to strengthening the links between colleges and local education authorities by decentralising the funding process. I realise the Government's unwillingness to turn back the clock, but perhaps some contractual arrangement between the colleges and the local education authorities for the funding of further education courses would enable the different characters of the colleges to be recognised and would enable the colleges to retain the benefits of incorporation while giving them an element of local control and accountability.
In any event, the Government must give urgent consideration to the serious problem of underfunding of the colleges. The further education colleges have made an important contribution to increasing the participation of people in education, particularly young people. By 1998, the total number of 17 and 18-year-olds will have increased by 12 per cent. since 1995. The Government have set a key target for 2000—that 70 per cent. of young people will have at least an SVQ III qualification. However, last year only 51 per cent. of young people had that qualification—19 per cent. short of the target—and last year's figure was lower than that for 1993. The colleges have an important role in meeting the key targets for 2000.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The hon. Gentleman referred to young people in our colleges. Does he accept that further education colleges also have a significant role for women whose families have grown up and who wish to return to college to undertake courses? One of the difficulties that these women face is that some of the colleges charge for creche and nursery facilities. This aspect should be looked at in depth. Women should be encouraged back into employment.

Mr. Canavan: I agree with the hon. Lady. Many of the courses that appeal to women may be discontinued if the Government do not provide adequate funding, which will severely limit education opportunities for many women throughout Scotland.
The colleges have traditionally played an important part in Scottish life, enabling many people to continue their education—whether it be for their individual development and enlightenment or for the acquisition of the types of vocational qualifications that are so essential for industry, commerce and the economy. If the colleges are to continue their excellent work, they must be given sufficient resources.
The Government must face up to their responsibilities. They introduced incorporation, so they can no longer pass the buck to local education authorities. The Government must provide the resources now. More expenditure on the colleges should be a top priority: it is an investment in education, an investment in training, an investment in people, and therefore an investment in Scotland's future.

Mr. William McKelvey: Good morning, Madam Speaker. I congratulate my learned Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) on securing this important debate and on covering it so eloquently. He has left little for other hon. Members to say, other than to mention important issues that concern the colleges that he did not mention, such as Kilmarnock college.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is there a precedent for a colleague saying good morning to you?

Madam Speaker: No, I do not think that there is. In four and a half years, I do not think that anyone has ever said good morning or good afternoon to me—which is why I appreciated it this morning, after a rather late night.

Mr. McKelvey: Madam Speaker, the point that you raise is valid: late nights and early mornings sometimes mean that we lose our sparkle.
Kilmarnock college is in my thoughts at the present time because of the Government's proposal to decrease the overall amount of funding for further education over the next two years. The proposal flies in the face of the success of all the colleges that have been mentioned, such as Kilmarnock college which is in my constituency. Evidence from Government reports has identified the need for a well trained and well educated work force, particularly at technician level in industries such as electronics, textiles, food and drink, and engineering.
All those industries are well represented in Ayrshire, particularly in Kilmarnock. In fact, the area used to be even better represented by these industries, before the loss of Massey Ferguson and almost 1,800 jobs at the stroke of a pen. That was some time ago. No multinational company of that size ever came back to Kilmarnock or to many other areas of Scotland. However, the small firms have done extremely well and we hope that their success continues.
Kilmarnock college has an effective working relationship with Enterprise Ayrshire and local authorities to deliver innovative training schemes. Kilmarnock college is working with small and medium-sized engineering companies, offering work-based training in a flexible, multi-skilling project. One has to ask why—at a time when ambitious national training targets have been set—are the Government squeezing the very organisations that are making the greatest contribution to achieving their targets?
Why are the Government reducing funding to further education colleges when, at the same time, they are producing competitiveness documents that indicate the need for Scotland to have a well trained work force to compete in European and international markets? Electronics, textiles and engineering are the industries in

which we need to have a highly skilled and well qualified work force. These industries are already in Ayrshire, but why have the Government reduced the amount of money available to further education when an increase is needed?
At the same time, I see no logic in allowing colleges to expand their full-time provision at higher national certificate and higher national diploma levels in areas where there is a proven need for engineering, science and technology. The Scottish Office further education funding unit should be working much closer with colleges to allow growth in areas that are vital to our local economies, particularly in engineering and electronics. They are holding at current levels the courses in soft areas, such as arts and social science. I am not a critic of holding the places in those so-called soft areas.
I am concerned that further education colleges do not have the necessary modern buildings and equipment to provide the appropriate courses to meet local needs. Some of the buildings are modern, but they have proved to be totally inadequate for the Scottish climate, particularly those that have flat roofs. Kilmarnock college has to spend some £500,000 on roof repairs at its Kilmarnock campus and some £250,000 on roof repairs at its Irvine campus.
I would have expected the college to receive a generous capital allocation from the further education funding unit so that it could tackle the problems. There is no point taking people into a building if the roof is likely to fall in at any time. Roofing repairs cannot be put off until next year so far as capital expenditure is concerned—they have to be done now. What did the further education funding unit give Kilmarnock college to tackle this pressing problem? Nothing.
It is also important that colleges are able to purchase modern equipment that allows relevant and appropriate training to take place. In engineering, computer-aided design and manufacturing equipment, electronics equipment and science equipment are essential if we are to keep up the struggle with the competition in Europe and beyond. Electronic equipment and science equipment are vital, and my learned Friend the Member for Falkirk, West covered those points very well. However, they are worth underlining and I want to hear what excuse the Minister will give for not providing the funding necessary to purchase that equipment.
Unlike the higher education sector—universities have diverse sources of funding—further education colleges struggle to provide such equipment. As I have said, the Scottish Office allocation to Kilmarnock college this year is zero. How long can that be allowed to continue? It must not continue and I hope that the Minister will announce today if not a solution to the whole problem, at least some capital funding that will enable Kilmarnock college to begin to repair its roofing.
Like us, the Government must recognise the importance of further education to the economic and social well-being of our local economies and our communities such as Kilmarnock and Loudoun and other areas of Ayrshire and supply adequate funding so that colleges, including Kilmarnock college, can provide adequate further education within the terms of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992. The Act states that the Secretary of State has a duty to make adequate further education available throughout Scotland and I think that he and the Minister are in danger of defaulting on their duty in that regard. The Secretary of State is also in


danger of failing in his duty to the people of Kilmarnock, of Ayrshire and of Scotland as a whole. I look forward to hearing the Minister confirm today that not only is he seriously concerned about the issues that hon. Members will outline but that he has immediate plans to reverse the trend.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: I congratulate the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) on his choice of subject for debate. While there has been considerable concentration on nursery, primary and secondary education due to the Government's interference and bungling in those areas and upon university education due to massive under-resourcing, the further education sector has been left out of the limelight. This debate gives credit where it is due. I know from my time as a senior lecturer at Angus college and at Dundee college the massive value of further education and the range of subjects that are taught at FE level.
Further education colleges have always been at the innovative and the pioneering edge of the education system. The hallmarks and the strengths of the FE sector are flexible courses, staff who are willing to adapt and reflect changing needs and the ability to cope with a wide range of demands for different courses—from the practical to the out-and-out academic. I enjoyed teaching in further education and I witnessed at first hand a period of growth at Angus and Dundee colleges which showed the FE system in its best light.
More than 200,000 students participate in either full-time or part-time further education—an increase of more than 50 per cent. since 1993. There is certainly a demand for further education. It has always been particularly important in the Scottish context as a provider of education and employment. According to the McNicholl report, further education colleges generated an estimated £600 million and 19,000 full-time equivalent jobs for the Scottish economy in 1993–94. They sustain many Scottish communities as both employers and education providers. I believe that we should invest in the sector—greater investment will be repaid handsomely in the future.
Under Government policy, which has consistently attacked local authorities, the right to award bursaries has been removed and the colleges are now funded directly by the Secretary of State for Scotland. The move to a new funding methodology was established through the use of a formula which directly links the level of funding to the volume and quality of learning. The key criteria in formula funding are student recruitment and retention. It represents an abrupt change from historic funding and has caused major difficulties for individual colleges.
While grant allocations are based entirely on the number of students at respective colleges, the Government have sought to encourage the growth of private finance initiatives. I believe that the loss of control associated with the development of PFIs undermines accountability. The Government have cut capital grants assuming that PFIs will step in, but the lack of proper investment has hit developments in science, engineering and technology. I am told that there are no funds to prepare for and implement "Higher Still" in 1998. I hope that the Minister will address those problems directly.
Some £11 million was axed from the Government's previous funding plans for further education colleges in 1995, despite a projected increase of 12 per cent. in the number of young people aged 17 and 18 in the period 1995–98. Thus the success of further education colleges is leading to their being penalised. The cuts also ignored the fact that the Government are already under-performing in terms of their training targets.
The effect of the cuts has been twofold. First, the need to make savings has caused huge staffing problems. The hon. Gentleman underlined that point admirably when he pointed out that Falkirk college of technology was forced to save £670,000, which is equivalent to 35 jobs. Lecturers at Coatbridge college have not had a salary increase since April 1994, which led to a strike by Educational Institute of Scotland members.
Secondly, there has been an attack on the national character of further education colleges, as increased funding for one college reduces funding for another. Simple numbers of students is a crude means of evaluation, which ignores special needs and the importance of the continued existence of a diverse choice of colleges at a time when increasing numbers should be a prime objective. FE colleges contribute greatly to the Scottish economy and we should build on that strength.
The Association of Scottish Colleges has offered some possible solutions to the problem and I recommend its suggestions to the Minister. They include an increase in the overall recurrent grant, a relaxation of capping, stronger policy support for vocational training, support to implement "Higher Still" in 1998 and more capital funds to bring buildings and equipment up to modern standards. Instead of greater investment, the Government propose further cuts in resources.
I note with despair that grant aid to colleges will be reduced by £15 million in the next three years—a cumulative reduction of 12.5 per cent. Those cuts are not sustainable without hefty redundancies of staff and a loss of quality and/or range of teaching—which is the strength of the FE sector. The PFI certainly cannot renew or replace dilapidated buildings or obsolete equipment. There is a danger that funds for bursaries in vocational further education will be frozen and that there will be a shortfall in key training targets.
The Government are failing the further education sector which would amply repay the extra investment that it needs. I have worked in further education and I know its strengths and the immense benefits that it offers across society. I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing): some of the best students I taught were women with families who returned to education. Many of them went on to university and they now have degrees. They are a credit to the further education sector, and their progress should be developed rather than hindered by a lack of investment.
Young people relish the further education atmosphere. Mature students who are given a second chance at education are faced with a dazzling range of courses that meet the needs of individuals and industry. I believe that further education is an asset that the Government are failing to resource properly. In so doing, they are making a major mistake.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I say amen to the considered, well argued and well informed speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), who knows and cares a great deal about the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) and the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) also made important speeches and raised many issues which deserve answers. I hope that the House will forgive me if I stick to a wholly local issue: the proposed relocation of West Lothian college to Livingston.
I am not casting aspersions on the motives of those who have made the proposal. I do not doubt their good faith and I understand perfectly well the attractions of a college under one roof on a single site rather than the difficulties that inevitably arise with an institution based on two separate sites, although it may not be such a serious problem to have two sites for a further education college which, by its very nature, would be concerned with full-time learning rather than part-time courses. But any such move would tear the heart out of the proud town of Bathgate.
Those of us in the area of Bathgate have accepted that the police headquarters, the council headquarters and a number of other important institutions should move to the new town, but at some point we must ask questions about the centres of old boroughs. The Minister should take it from me, as the local Member of Parliament and a local person, that the removal of that college from Bathgate would be a serious matter for the town and for that part of West Lothian. I therefore have five questions to ask.
First, what are the responsibilities of the board of management of the college to the Scottish Office? Perhaps I should know, but I am not the only one who is not clear about that. Secondly, the proposal has leaked out, but has the Scottish Office been consulted—it may not have been—and, if so, what did it say? Thirdly, what has the Scottish Office advised about staff and resource requirements? As my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West has said, there is a desperate shortage of resources and so many other urgent priorities. Has the Scottish Office been consulted about the proposal as a priority for the use of scarce resources and, again, what has it advised?
Fourthly, what consideration has been given to the proposal by planners in the Scottish Office? West Lothian council has not been consulted about the rebuilding—if there is to be rebuilding—or new building on the St. Mary academy site and on the land above the college which, as far as we know, is free land on which major building work could take place. Has consultation taken place about that proposal?
Fifthly, as I understand the current proposals—I am open to correction—the builders are to erect a new building on the Livingston site. In return, West Lothian college proposes to give—I repeat, give—the current buildings and land to the builders, though not the old academy, which I believe is listed, because it belongs to the people of Bathgate. We are uncertain about who the people of Bathgate are in that respect, other than the successors to the old West Lothian county council. That is a grey area. As I understand it, West Lothian college will then lease—I repeat, lease—the new building and equipment from the builders. If I have understood it right,

and if other people have understood it right, that arrangement raises a few eyebrows. What does the Scottish Office think about the leasing proposal?
The issue is the future of the town of Bathgate. I ask those questions, in gentle tones, because I genuinely do not know the answers. I do not want to jump to any conclusions until there has been a proper discussion.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I wish to add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) on obtaining this debate on the subject of further education. The subject has been much neglected in debate in the House and it is high time that further education, especially Scottish further education, got a thorough airing. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) spoke about equipment and facilities for people undertaking skills training and I fully support all that he said.
I wish to raise an aspect of further education that has always been neglected—the wider general education of students in further education. Everyone who has ever worked in further education knows, as the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) will confirm, that there is not only a long-standing lack of appropriate funding, but sometimes a problem, unfortunately, with the attitudes of the traditional craft teachers, who regarded any time spent on general education as a waste of students' time. It has always been a struggle to provide appropriate general education for students who come straight from school and spend some years on day release or block release.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West mentioned the fact that teacher numbers in FE were dropping, he filled me with alarm. I taught in FE for some years and I remember what happens when there are not enough teachers to serve the students' needs. Teachers get landed with timetables that have far too many class contact hours and they cannot get through timetables of that size without using devices to overcome the problems, such as doubling up classes; that is not good for the students, but it is one of the strategies that teachers are forced to adopt when they have marking or preparation to do for other classes.
Teachers are also asked to teach subjects that they are not qualified to teach. I recall my first week in FE. I had spent several years acquiring an honours degree in economic history, with English as my second subject, but I was given a timetable that included four periods of chemistry. I went to the head of department and said that there must have been a mistake. He said that the students were only studying chemistry at a low level and that I need be only one chapter ahead of them. I refused point blank to teach chemistry because I had not spent all those years acquiring my qualifications to end up teaching a subject that I could have taught equally badly when I left school. I failed science in my third year at school and never attempted it again.
It is nonsense that teachers can be asked to teach subjects that they are not qualified in, but it happens. I was able to resist the request because I was in a full-time, permanent post and I had a union that could back me up if necessary. But now, when so many people have short-term, impermanent posts and contracts, they find it difficult to resist such nonsensical suggestions.


Such problems will lead to a failure to educate young people in further education so well as they could be educated.
Another problem is the discontinuation of courses because there are not enough staff to teach them. Another danger, which has not yet been mentioned, is the requirement that a course must have a certain number of bodies in the classroom to be taught. If a small number of students genuinely want to do a course and are appropriately qualified for it and keen to get started, they might be disappointed unless the number of bums on seats can be increased.
What happens is that people for whom that course is not really appropriate are persuaded by unscrupulous persons to enter that course, which might not be right for them because it is either beyond or beneath their capacities. It might not be a suitable subject area for them. In some instances students will be directed to the course merely to get it started. If they later fall by the wayside, too bad. Some will say, "At least the course was started." We must avoid such nonsense taking place in further education. We know, of course, that they arise because of shortage of funds.
I should like to know—the Minister will probably not be able to tell me when he replies, but the information could be set out in a written answer—what is spent per head on further education and higher education students. We know that HE necessarily costs a great deal of money. We have seen the results of underfunding in FE, however, which can be grotesque. I spent several years in a business studies college, which was virtually asked by the local authority not to use so much paper. That was a nonsensical request of a business studies college. We were not making paper aeroplanes. Paper was being used for work.
Anyone who has taught general education in an FE college will recognise the Wilt syndrome. Tom Sharpe wrote about the experience of a general studies teacher staggering from block A to block D with 20 copies of "Shane" in his arms. Tom Sharpe was not exaggerating and he was not joking. Students do not have the funds to enable them to buy their own books. I remember ancient and battered copies of texts that we had to cart from room to room, or even block to block, so that we might give work to students. We had constantly to spend time devising our own materials or finding them because there were insufficient funds. That time could have been spent on teaching. Those are examples of what happens when there is underfunding in further education.
The market has been brought into further education and, as a result, colleges are competing with one another for courses instead of adopting a more sensible planning approach to ensure that colleges play to their own strengths and teach the subjects which are traditional to them and which they are accustomed to teach. A planning approach would ensure that students' needs were better met than at present. Students now are even more disadvantaged than they were 20 years ago when I was involved in FE.
I look forward to the day when we have a Scottish Parliament. At long last we shall have a dedicated and elected body that will take the interest in FE that is now sadly lacking.

Mr. James Wallace: I shall speak only briefly because the debate takes place on the firm foundation provided by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), who covered almost all the ground. It was tempting to say, "Let the Minister reply to that." The hon. Gentleman made all the key points.
I take up the final remark of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). I, too, look forward to the day when there is a Scottish Parliament. If it works as those who are involved in the constitutional convention foresee, it will use committees and have a greater involvement in consultation. As a result, the further education and higher education institutions will have a close link with the Scottish Parliament. When it makes decisions that affect FE and HE, and other education sectors, they will be informed ones. I have no doubt that it will legislate accordingly. There will be good and close links between the Scottish Parliament and those involved in the various education sectors.
When the Government took legislation through the House to take FE colleges away from local authority control, the proposal was met with considerable resistance, and naturally so. There is considerable concern when Government have the opportunity to centralise. They follow up that process with direct controls over funding, which is really the substance of the debate.
In a local context, I appreciated the fact that the Scottish Office gave proper recognition to the fact that the FE colleges in both Orkney and Shetland were closely integrated with the secondary schools on both islands. Since structural changes have taken place, it has been pleasing to watch the development of FE facilities on both Orkney and Shetland. I had the great pleasure last year of opening some splendid new facilities for the FE college on Shetland. I know that on Orkney considerable efforts are being made to establish the FE college in its own right. I believe that we shall see it moving away from its integration with the secondary school.
What we have achieved locally on the islands echoes one of the calls made by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West. There should be a way of establishing better links with the local education authority and FE colleges. It is important to establish a link between the community and its FE college. That is something that we have achieved on Orkney and Shetland because of our slightly different status.
It is important to develop—I am sure that this is not exclusive to FE colleges in the highlands and islands—distance learning techniques. A considerable amount of education is now delivered by that means, and I am sure that the technique will be developed still further in years to come. Many FE colleges will play an important part in the development of the university of the highlands and islands. It is thought that the university should not be concentrated in one place and instead should be a multi-campus institution. I am sure that FE colleges have a considerable and important role to play in that context.
We have heard that, since the incorporation of FE colleges, there have been considerable achievements in terms of increasing numbers of students and efficiency gains, which last year were assessed as 4.2 per cent. As has been said this morning, however, we cannot go on and on increasing numbers and expecting efficiency gains to be achieved. Increasing numbers pose their own


problems in terms of providing accommodation and ensuring that proper staff time is made available to students.
The cry that is coming from the debate is that it must be recognised that we cannot continue to reduce funding year upon year. There is a predicted reduction in funding of about 4 per cent. in real terms, year on year, from now until 1998–99. That will lead to a reduction in the quality of the education provided, and it is bound to have an effect on staff morale, especially if there are redundancies to meet lower budgets. Reduced funding will also have an effect on students.
Those engaged in FE, and the nation as a whole, face a considerable challenge. It is clear that FE is an important resource and an important opportunity for the 60 per cent. of young people who do not wish to enter HE. It is an important sector in which the skills of our young people can be developed. When we consider the targets that have been set by the Government and the Advisory Scottish Council for Education and Training, we realise how far we are still falling behind. One of the most alarming targets is that 60 per cent. of the work force should have SVQ III qualifications by the year 2000. We had reached 47 per cent. by 1995, and the position was static. Given the trends that have been discussed this morning, it is difficult to see how the gap can be bridged satisfactorily in the four years left to do it.
Everyone—the Government and the Opposition, the Confederation of British Industry and the Scottish Trades Union Council—agree that it is important to improve the skills and training of our young people. As the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) rightly reminded us, it is not only young people and women returners who are to be considered. We must increasingly recognise that in a rapidly changing world the skills that young people acquire at the age of 18 or 19 may not be the skills that they need for employment or employability when they reach the age of 35 or 40. We shall increasingly see people returning to colleges to update their skills, and the FE colleges in Scotland will have a significant role to play.
We must maintain a network of FE colleges which achieve high standards. That can be done only if it is accepted that there must be the funding and resources that go with producing the quality education that our country and especially our young people so desperately need.

Mrs. Helen Liddell: I join my hon. Friends in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) on securing this important debate, as further education has become very much the orphan of the education system, which is regrettable, as it is a tremendous window of opportunity for people and, indeed, the economy.
I hope that such an experienced parliamentarian as my hon. Friend will not consider it amiss if I—as an inexperienced parliamentarian—echo the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and pay tribute to the considered nature of my hon. Friend's speech, much of which was obviously the result of considerable thought and experience. I listened to it with interest and will read it tomorrow with even greater interest, as he gave us some pointers to the future that merit detailed consideration by my hon. Friends and me,

and also by the Government. Many of my hon. Friend's points about the future of higher education funding and the relationship with further education funding are important. The key point he made is at the root of the debate—the paucity of funding for further education in Scotland, which is of considerable importance to Scotland.
Since taking over the education brief, I have had lengthy discussions with representatives from further education colleges. Indeed, I have a constituency interest, as a further education college is adjacent to my constituency. In the House today are representatives of the further education colleges, who have travelled all the way from Scotland at considerable inconvenience and expense, so it is with regret that I see that on the Government Benches the Minister sits isolated with only the Whip for interest. Do none of his hon. Friends represent areas with an interest in further education? Further education is at the heart of the education system in Scotland, and it is regrettable that Conservative Members have not taken more interest in the debate, given that all the Opposition parties in Scotland have been represented and a number of significant points have been made.
The extent of the funding cut affecting colleges—half the colleges have suffered quite a severe cut—is causing grave concern to all of us who are concerned about the future of further education in Scotland. The point has been made repeatedly that there has been a continuing quest for efficiency on the part of the Government, not recognising that year-on-year quests for efficiency, with student numbers increasing, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) pointed out, are not the route to efficiency but are the route to reducing quality. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). I shudder to think what I would have done if I had been asked to teach chemistry. I referred in Committee yesterday to the lengths to which I went to get a higher in Latin, which involved learning Latin off by heart to get through the exam. I should add that I was successful and now have a higher in Latin, but do not ask me to translate any of it.
This is the European Year of Lifelong Learning, and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), in his capacity as Scotland's Education Minister, took part in its impressive launch at the new conference centre in Edinburgh just few months ago, in the presence of Mrs. Edith Cresson. Is it not ironic therefore that this year we are cutting the resources to one of the key elements of lifelong learning—further education?
My hon. Friends and the Minister will recognise that I have a specific interest in this in relation to the career of my personal assistant, Mr. Frank Roy, who was a Ravenscraig shop steward and was made redundant as a consequence of the closure of that plant. The closure had a devastating effect on the economy not just of Lanarkshire but of all Scotland. With the help of Motherwell college, he got his highers, and with his own determination he got a degree from Glasgow Caledonian university. He now works for me, which is a bit of a dip in his prospects, but in the next few months my hon. Friends and I look forward to welcoming him to the Labour Benches as the Member of Parliament for Motherwell and Wishart. [Interruption.]
I have a limited sense of direction, but I am sure that my hon. Friend, as he will be at that time, will be a great help to a Labour Government, given his wide range of skills and his common sense. Common sense is lacking in the Government's attitude to further education in Scotland. It is common sense to build up the skills base of our economy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) pointed out, what is the point of competitiveness White Papers when we are slipping to 35th place in the world list of educational qualifications? We are cutting the very means by which people can acquire skills throughout their career.
Those of us who are in our prime left school, but the opportunity was there to pursue further or higher education and to look forward to a reasonable spread of careers, until the Conservative Government took over in 1979. Now our children will probably have to change careers three or four times in their working lives, not just as a consequence of the policies of the Conservative party Government but because of industrial and technological change. One key way to ensure change in the skills base is through an adequate system of further education. My party pledges itself to a strong and vibrant further education sector.
I have taken on board a number of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West, which are extremely interesting. I have also taken into account one of the significant points made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland regarding asset targets. We recognise that, if we are to have a viable economy in future, we must increase the skills base. I pay tribute to the work carried out by the advisory committee on education and training in Scotland, which has done a tremendous amount of work in identifying the weaknesses in the skills base.
I was particularly impressed with some of the points made by the Association of Scottish Colleges, which I had hoped to meet on Monday. Because of parliamentary business at the Scottish Grand Committee in Perth, however, I was not able to do so. That association and the Educational Institute of Scotland pointed to the shortfall in meeting the asset targets in Scotland. To an extent, that is because Ministers refuse to accept ownership for the targets and refuse to accept responsibility for the funding of further education to ensure that we meet them.
In another part of the House, we have discussed in the past few weeks the establishment of a single examination board that will take into account the Scottish Examination Board and the Scottish Vocational Education Council to ensure that the examination structure in place for the introduction of "Higher Still", which is a radical change in post-16 education in Scotland. One important element to secure changes in post-16 education in Scotland is to ensure that our further education colleges are equipped to prepare themselves for "Higher Still", and they are limited as a consequence of the decisions that the Government have taken on funding.
How many colleges began this year with a deficit? Further education colleges have been under pressure not just because of the impact of incorporation but because of the policies that the Government have adopted. One of the positive consequences of incorporation is the involvement of local businesses in further education.

Many business men and women are appalled at the way in which the Government have conducted further education funding: they continually move the goalposts. They insist on efficiency savings whenever they are not prepared to make resources available, and they fail to recognise the crying need of local industry for a well-skilled work force.
I listened with great interest to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, who pointed out the difficulties that Bathgate is likely to experience as a consequence of the decision to centre his further education college in Livingston. I do not wish to go into specific constituency points, but my constituency is adjacent to Bathgate and I recognise the extent to which a college can give some vibrancy, life and hope to a community. My constituency is adjacent to Coatbridge college and I recognise the significance that it brings to the local community. I know from my local employers how important it is to have the college nearby, one with which they can co-operate and get a ready supply of skilled workers.
The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh), who has worked in further education, made an important point about the availability of resources. He also spoke of the need for a diverse range of courses. We in Scotland pride ourselves on the diversity of our education system, which must be extended and maintained in further education. The point was amplified by my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill, who referred to her own experience and made an interesting point about the quest for improved general education standards in Scotland. That relates to the availability of general education in further education colleges for those pursuing craft courses.
If we are to have multi-skilling, and if new skills are to be available for the future, people must have the self-confidence that will enable them to change skills. That may not seem important, given the self-confidence of my hon. Friends, but increasing people's confidence is difficult in Scotland, partly because we have experienced generations of high unemployment. Our education system is very sound on the basics, which gives us the edge, but we lose out through not giving people enough self-confidence. That is one of the great things that educational qualifications can provide, because achievement in the further education sector is recognised.
It is regrettable that we have had to have this debate. It would have been much better if we had gathered here to examine the opportunities for further education in Scotland. As we approach the turn of the century, new industries and opportunities will emerge. I hope that that will happen under a Labour Government.
Those of us who represent Lanarkshire constituencies are very conscious of the impact of inward investment and companies such as Chunghwa Picture Tubes, and of the need to provide the diversity of skills that that company will require. The same position is replicated throughout Scotland. Another important part of Scotland's economic future is tourism. Many of our colleges provide courses in hospitality, which are vital to the improvement of the service that we offer the tourist industry. They, as well as the many science and technology-based courses of which we have been so proud in the past, are important in Scotland.
I cannot understand the reasoning of the Scottish Office. I hope that the Minister will be good enough to give us a clue to why he is selling not just the family


silver but the future in refusing to fund our colleges adequately. It is not necessary to travel far to find colleges that are doing sterling work in deplorable conditions. There will be no sustainable future for those colleges if there are to be hefty staff redundancies, and a lessening of the quality and range of teaching because of the pressures put on teachers who must work in dilapidated buildings with obsolete equipment that the private finance initiative cannot renew or replace.
The only form of growth that has taken place is the granting of responsibility to colleges for the allocation of bursaries. We shall be discussing that elsewhere in the House of Commons in the next few days, but is it not ironic that the Government, while trimming and fiddling at the edges, are ducking the key issue? If we are to invest in the future of the Scottish economy and the confidence of our young people, and secure the place in the world economy which I believe we are capable of securing rather than languishing where the Government have put us, the investment that we make in education is crucial.
I commend the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West. He made valid points that summed up the issues that people in Scotland are currently discussing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun pointed out, in investing in further education we are investing in training, education, our people and our country's future.
This morning's debate shows the nature of the issues that a Scottish parliament will address. It will be in tune with the demands of the people of Scotland, and will provide a degree of co-ordination and commitment that I consider important. I hope that the damage that the Government are doing to further education will not have dug in so deep that it will be too difficult for us to address in the early days of a Labour Government.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) on securing the debate. It has been a good debate, and, although I may not have agreed with everything—indeed, anything—said by Opposition Members, I do not doubt their sincerity for a moment. That applies both to the specific constituency cases cited by the hon. Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) and for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and to the more general points that were made.

Mr. Canavan: Did I hear the Minister say that he did not agree with anything that had been said by Opposition Members?

Mr. Robertson: I did not agree with everything, and perhaps with anything, but the hon. Gentleman may agree with some of what I say. As I have said, I do not doubt Opposition Members' sincerity, although part of what was said by the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) seemed unnecessarily strident.
The debate is important because of the vital role that our colleges play in meeting the skills needs of the Scottish economy. I hope that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West read the article in yesterday's edition of The Herald, which said that substantial growth in the uptake of Scottish vocational qualifications was being

stimulated throughout Scotland by the further education sector. That flies in the face of one of the central points of the hon. Gentleman's speech.
No one disputes the fact that we need a highly competitive and skilled work force in an increasingly competitive global economy. The role of colleges, and their success—for I believe they are successful—is not mentioned often or loudly enough. Today's wide-ranging debate has highlighted some of those successes, but, unfortunately, it has also misrepresented the dynamism of Scotland's FE sector to a great extent. I welcome the opportunity to make clear the Government's support for the colleges, and to describe what we have done and will do in the future.
I am personally committed to that, having visited nine colleges in virtually as many months. I did that because I wanted to see at first hand what they were doing and how they were doing it. I was impressed by the enthusiasm and commitment of the management, staff and students whom I met, and I pay tribute to them.
In the period since April 1993—which, after all, was only just over three years ago—colleges have built on earlier strengths and, through that liberating process, have achieved some remarkable advances. Incorporation has assisted college responsiveness by devolving decision making to local level, and has led colleges to look critically at their structures and systems to ensure that they are appropriate to a dynamic environment.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun asked why a college in his constituency had received a nil capital allocation for this year. Capital works in our colleges are increasingly being funded successfully from the private finance initiative. What the hon. Gentleman did not mention was that Kilmarnock college had received 5.12 per cent. additional funding this year, and last year had received a capital grant of more than £500,000. I was concerned by much of what the hon. Gentleman said, however, and I shall be happy for my officials to meet representatives of the college as a matter of urgency to see whether the issues that he raised can be explored further.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned the relocation of West Lothian college from Bathgate to Livingston. The college has not yet assessed the financial and other implications of the option to relocate the entire college. In reaching its conclusions, it will have regard to the best interests of education and training in the West Lothian area as a whole, and we shall study those conclusions carefully.
The hon. Gentleman asked five specific questions. If he does not mind, I shall reply to them fully in writing.

Mr. Dalyell: Obviously such a reply is much better than an immediate response, but will the Minister assure me that the officials will sit down with all concerned and discuss the position before any final decisions are made?

Mr. Robertson: I do not hesitate to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
As the hon. Member for Monklands, East said, colleges are also involving employers, as major stakeholders, in what they do. That involvement takes place at many levels: on the board of management to ensure strategic vision, with the local enterprise company to collaborate in the local achievement of education and training targets and with individual


employers to meet their specific needs. What characterises 0the 220,000 students who attend colleges is the differences between them, and that is the strength of those colleges. About a third of college activities are undertaken by part-time students, with 5 per cent. of students studying by open or flexible learning. In recent years, much of the growth in Scottish higher education has occurred in colleges.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) spoke of staff numbers being in decline. That is not true. In October 1992, there were 6,850 teaching staff, but since incorporation the number has risen, to just under 7,000 in 1994–95. The increases in the volume of student activity in 1994–95 over the previous year were as follows: art and design, up 14 per cent.; social studies, languages and communication, up 9 per cent.; and special needs programmes, up 17 per cent.

Mrs. Fyfe: If the Minister cannot answer my question now, perhaps he will write to me, but what is the student to staff ratio now compared with five or 10 years ago?

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Lady has asked a number of specific questions and I shall reply in writing.

Mr. Wallace: The Minister said that staff numbers have increased. Are his figures for full-time equivalent staff?

Mr. Robertson: Yes, they are.

Mrs. Fyfe: Will the Minister give a written answer on how many of those staff are in permanent posts and how many are on short-term contracts?

Mr. Robertson: I shall write to the hon. Lady. If she wants me to write to her again, perhaps she will write to me and we may make some progress.
We funded growth, but, following rapid expansion, it has proved necessary to hold full-time numbers to their current record levels, although colleges are being encouraged to continue to expand the number of students on part-time higher education courses.
Such provision is not capped. Just under half of all students are over 25, reflecting the range of innovative programmes on offer and the colleges' commitment to lifelong learning. Increasingly, colleges provide training for employers on their premises, often to Scottish vocational qualification standards. I want to encourage these trends, with colleges increasing student participation further, particularly by introducing more part-time provision and open and flexible learning opportunities in partnership with employers.
The goal of increasing student participation has been one of our major objectives since incorporation, and we are meeting the objective. In the academic year 1994–95, student activity increased by 6 per cent. Colleges will continue to increase activity this academic year and in future. That growth is being stimulated by the funding of colleges and by the way in which funds are distributed.
Listening to some hon. Members, one would think that colleges do not have the resources to fund that expansion. Since incorporation in April 1993, recurrent funding for

further education has increased by 14 per cent. In each year, the recurrent funding made available to colleges has increased. In 1996–97, £233 million will be available. That has been possible despite the need to maintain downward pressure on public expenditure.
The hon. Member for Monklands, East, in a wide-ranging and well-crafted speech, said that the Government were underfunding further education. I assume that she missed out the page in her speech that stated by how much we are doing so and how quickly and how much an incoming Labour Government would put into Scottish higher education. I give her the chance to rectify her mistake, which she made when she turned over two pages in her speech instead of one.

Mrs. Liddell: I was aware that a number of colleagues had made the point and I did not wish to be unnecessarily repetitive. However, £45 million less is available to colleges than employers say they need simply to maintain 1995 service levels.

Mr. Robertson: No, it was not that page but the one that states how much a Labour Government would invest in their first year in office.

Mrs. Liddell: I recognise that the Minister is practising for being in opposition, questioning the next Government. We will adequately fund Scottish further education. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has published wide-ranging proposals that will ensure that our young people get the skills and training that the Government's funding of further education is limiting.

Mr. Robertson: I hope that all those from the colleges who are watching the debate and those who will read it later heard the hon. Lady refuse to give any commitment on how much an incoming Labour Government—that will not happen—will spend.
The challenge for now and for the future is to maintain and improve standards while increasing efficiency. We have set the colleges challenging targets, delivering efficiency savings of 4 per cent. each year. I am pleased to say that the colleges are achieving that, and there is no reason why they cannot continue to do so.
At the time of incorporation, the costs of providing further education varied enormously throughout Scotland. In some colleges, it cost about twice as much to teach comparable subjects. Colleges were not funded coherently or systematically. We have therefore gradually phased in a newer and fairer approach to allocating funds, based on student activity achieved by colleges. This aims to ensure that a reasonable balance is struck between resources that colleges receive from the taxpayer and the need to encourage them to deliver value-for-money increases in student participation and high standards, which they are achieving.
I make no apologies for the new funding formula, requiring high-cost colleges to find efficiencies to bring them closer to the average. The wide variation in colleges' cost efficiencies could not continue. We are assisting colleges to make the necessary adjustments by restructuring funds—£4 million in 1995–96—for retraining or enabling staff to take early retirement. This is not all about shedding staff; restructuring must reflect


the changing pattern of demand for courses. Many colleges are recruiting staff to meet the changing and growing demand in new areas, as the hon. Member for Falkirk, West said, such as mechatronics.
Our decisions on college funding reflect our view that, increasingly, the private finance initiative will replace capital grant funding. It is an important policy in bringing together a new partnership between the private and public sectors. Despite Opposition Members' comments, colleges are enthusiastic about it.

Mr. Canavan: We do not doubt colleges' enthusiasm, but it would be greater if they received sufficient resources to do the job. The figures that I quoted were given to me by the Association of Scottish Colleges, which in turn were extracted from the Scottish Office's plans. Taking revenue and capital expenditure into account, in real terms, there will be a 12.5 per cent. reduction in the amount that the Scottish Office gives colleges from 1994–95 to the financial year 1998–99. How on earth can the Minister justify such a massive decrease in assistance to colleges?

Mr. Robertson: Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman has not been listening to me. I am glad that he accepts that colleges are enthusiastic about the private finance initiative.
Two projects—a new campus for Falkirk college in Stirling and a new campus for West Lothian college in Livingston—are at an advanced stage. The PFI is not the only public and private partnership that is under way. By operating more efficiently, colleges are freeing resources to improve their buildings and equipment, both directly and through the freedom to borrow. There are examples all over Scotland.
Among the best is the new multi-million-pound campus at James Watt college at the waterfront development in Greenock. Perth college has attracted £2 million of support from the Gannochy trust for a new library and study centre, which will put it at the forefront of the use of new technology.
I was pleased to inaugurate the construction of that building, where I announced a grant of £200,000 to assist with equipment. The policy document "Training for the Future" announced an allocation of £500,000 to equip colleges generally with new technological equipment. We have also invested substantially in upgrading college buildings since incorporation, with capital grants of £46 million. Hon. Members who visit colleges will see the transformation for themselves.
The list of achievements is long: the multi-million-pound project at Edinburgh's Telford college, whose refurbished north campus opened on Monday; Cardonald college, where investment of £4 million has been made; and Langside college's business school, which I recently opened.
If we are to face future challenges, a partnership approach is important. I should like briefly to identify what they will be. We must strive to provide better guidance, raise participation and improve success in achieving qualifications. We are working with colleges in these areas.
The "Higher Still" reforms, which will be implemented in academic session 1998–99, will provide a unified programme of academic and vocational learning, leading to certificates on a subject or group basis.
Information technology opens up an exciting new way of responding imaginatively to the needs of students and employers. Colleges need to facilitate that process, and we have the excellent example of Fife college, which demonstrated to me the use of telematics to support training in small and medium-sized enterprises. Information technology will also provide a way of delivering much of the teaching and learning at the new university of the Highlands and Islands. I am confident that further education colleges in Scotland will have more students studying more subjects with more staff and money than ever before. That is a tribute to the Government, and it is unfortunate that Opposition Members cannot see that.

Defence and Security (Europe)

Mr. John Wilkinson: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of Britain's role in Europe's defence and security policy and to address issues of the utmost topicality and importance.
The outcome of the first round of the Russian presidential elections last weekend has demonstrated how finely balanced are the political forces in the Russian federation. The emergence of General Lebed, with his background as former commander of the Russian 14th army in Moldova and of operational experience in Afghanistan, as national security adviser to President Yeltsin has more than domestic significance.
At the European summit in Florence on Friday, it is possible—if the beef crisis permits—that there will be discussion of Europe's common foreign and security policy. It is certainly a theme for the intergovernmental conference, and Britain's views should be more influential than most. The United Kingdom is, with France, one of only two nuclear powers in Europe, so the UK's strategic weight is disproportionate to its military manpower. We are the sole nation within NATO, apart from the United States of America, to have troops permanently stationed outside its national territory in Europe, and beyond—for example, in the Falklands and Hong Kong. Also, with principal NATO subordinate commands—Allied Forces North West at High Wycombe and Headquarters Eastern Atlantic at Northwood—Britain is the cornerstone of Europe's defence and security architecture.
With major US military facilities still located in Britain, the UK is crucial for the projection of American power to Europe and the maintenance of a balance of forces and security on the continent. In defence terms, the UK has long been at the heart of Europe. It would be even more so if it had persuaded the rest of the Western European Union to allow the other organs of the institution to join the council located in London, by offering County hall as the headquarters for the whole organisation, instead of succumbing to the European impetus towards Brussels, which seems so fundamental these days.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman so early in his speech, but does he not realise that if the WEU is to be an effective European pillar for NATO, it is essential that liaison and co-operation between those organisations has practical and real significance? That prospect will be enhanced if the WEU is situated in Brussels, where there can be regular personal and other forms of contact.

Mr. Wilkinson: I totally understand the point, but I was thinking about Britain's influence in defence affairs. As ours is an Atlantic nation, that influence should be important. The concomitant risk of locating the WEU in Brussels is that it could be over-influenced by the European Union and its aspirations to take over much of the WEU's role, but I do not dispute that there is considerable validity in the hon. Gentleman's argument.
From 1945 to the end of the 1980s, the artificial division of Europe by Soviet force of arms dominated defence debates in the House, and the necessity for deterrence of potentially aggressive Warsaw pact forces through the doctrine of flexible response determined the

character and scale of the military dispositions of the western alliance and its nuclear-based strategy. Paradoxically, the division of our continent remains the greatest challenge for Europe's security policy and overall strategy.
In the days of the cold war, the imperative was the perpetuation of the artificial division of Europe through the containment of the potentially aggressive Warsaw pact along the iron curtain. Today, inclusive initiatives are emerging to hasten the end of the political divisions that plagued our continent for so long. Those initiatives are crucial in extending to fellow European nations which were denied democracy for four decades after world war two the fruits of political and economic liberty, underpinned by collective security arrangements that offer genuine defence guarantees and no provocation to any neighbouring state.
NATO's post-cold war adaptation has been rapid and remarkable. The rationalisation and reorganisation of its integrated command structure to reflect the lower level of its assigned forces have been impressive. NATO's continuation as a defensive alliance after the former Soviet forces had gone home from central Europe was fully justified by the organisation's decisive role in bringing the Bosnian war to a halt when the United Nations, WEU and European Union had between them failed. NATO's implementation force in Bosnia, which even contains contingents of non-NATO countries, has kept the peace in that country and provides the security necessary for economic reconstruction and, hopefully before too long, for successful democratic elections.
In the Gulf war, the coalition of western and Arab nations that successfully defended Saudi Arabia and liberated Kuwait was made possible by the long experience of the western allies' armed forces and military commanders of working together in NATO's integrated military structure. NATO has, through the North Atlantic Co-operation Council and the partnership for peace programme, shown commendable initiative in adapting to the realities of contemporary Europe, which is mercifully no longer imperilled by hostile ideology or aggressively configured forces.
Instability in the Russian federation, as in Chechnya and the sovereign republics on its southern flanks, provides risks and unpredictable contingencies. NATO's new Balkan involvement is supposedly limited to the end of this year, but could prove longer lasting. The impact of militant and fundamentalist Islam from Turkey to Morocco poses a new orientation to Europe's security arrangements and a real danger in the Mediterranean basin. Nuclear and chemical proliferation allied to ballistic missile transfers to aggressive regimes challenges the processes of arms control and demonstrates the need for NATO in Europe to acquire its own ballistic missile defence.
NATO's defensive credentials are impeccable, and the democratic nature of its member states unquestionable. There is no reasonable cause for delaying NATO's expansion to the east. By what justification should the genuine democracies of central Europe and the Baltic states be denied the security guarantees previously extended by NATO to Turkey, Greece and Portugal when those countries, for a time, did not have democratic Governments?
Why should Russia have a veto on the purely defensive security arrangements of sovereign democratic states? This is particularly so when the example of Norway showed that it could be—throughout the cold war, as a full NATO member—a good neighbour of Russia, with a common border and a sensitivity to the Nordic balance, which made it wholly appropriate that neither NATO nuclear weapons nor NATO foreign troops should be stationed on Norway's soil in time of peace.
Today, the Norwegian model has relevance for the full and early NATO membership of the Baltic states. The cost of Russia's interventions in Afghanistan and Chechnya have shown the Russian people and the Russian military how bloody was their denial of legitimate self-determinations and how high was the cost to the Russian armed forces—a lesson that General Lebed has never forgotten.
There has never been a qualifying contribution for NATO membership. Luxembourg has been a welcome member with only one battalion of troops, no air force and, certainly, no navy. Iceland has no armed forces at all. Importantly, through the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, there is now—there was not previously—an over-arching instrument for crisis management and for better understanding across the European continent. Through the partnership for peace there is also, of course, an experience of military dialogue upon which to build.
In the cold war, the European Community—which in those days was a purely economic organisation—never offered security guarantees or kept the peace. It was an example of free enterprise principles jointly applied for the common good. Today, the European Community—I use the word advisedly—could, as a community, be a unifying force for the new Europe rather than a potential source of division, which it promises to be as a political entity.
The objective of ever closer union via the chosen path of economic and monetary union, as laid down in the Maastricht treaty—to which the Government fatally subscribed in the fullest sense, committing themselves not only to the end of Union, but to the financial means of bringing the European Union about through the ever larger budgetary contributions agreed at the Edinburgh summit in 1992—is incompatible with the much more important goal of swift enlargement to include all the democracies of eastern and central Europe, and not only the Visegrad three.
Our deliberations in the European Standing Committee have revealed the huge additional cost of extending the common agricultural policy, on enlargement of the European Union, to the acceding countries to the east, especially to Hungary and to Poland. It is small wonder that the European Commission is now talking of admitting only the Visegrad three in 2002, with no firm date for equally eligible states such as Estonia. Why should those countries be in only the second division of applicant countries?
Applicant nations regard their accession to the European Union as an element in their overall security policy. Are western-oriented democracies to be left out in the cold? Procrastination over their entry will feed resentment among their people and their political classes, especially since the European Union is denying them access, through its tariffs, to its market for their cheap

agricultural produce and, in some instances, dumping on them surplus food over-produced by European Union farmers through the munificent operations of CAP subsidies.
It is a similar tale with the Western European Union, to full membership of which central and eastern European countries reasonably aspire. If one takes contemporary rhetoric at its face value, the WEU is either the European defence identity or the European pillar of NATO. The recent NATO council in Berlin enhanced further this apparent status by affirming the assignment to WEU of combined NATO joint task forces. Those NATO formations are, in the first instance, for performing the St. Petersburg tasks of peacekeeping and humanitarian relief, but conceivably—by implication—they are ultimately for military operations when the United States does not want to invoke its security guarantee, including a nuclear option, or when it might not wish to imperil its good bilateral relations with the Russian Federation.
My hon. Friend the Minister knows that the House of Commons Select Committee on Defence was very sceptical about the efficacy of the WEU as a military organisation. However, the ministerial council of the WEU—in its Birmingham communiqué in May, to which the Government subscribed—called the WEU
the defence component of the European Union".
As such, applicant countries take it very seriously. They do not deserve to be disappointed in their desire to join the WEU as full members.
There are two elements to Europe's defence and security policy that are of intense interest to the United Kingdom, and upon which Britain has direct influence. The first is the ambition of the European Union to arrogate to itself a military competence through armaments co-operation. The Franco-German armaments agency, which the United Kingdom has recently joined, might be the first stage in that process. If so, I believe that it will be a retrograde step.
If the purpose of the agency is to predispose the participating nations against the procurement of equipment from the United States, it could diminish the operational effectiveness of the British and European armed forces, which need to be able to buy the best equipment, or the most cost-effective equipment, from whatever source. It could have the adverse effect of excluding European industry from lucrative American programmes, recent examples of which include the C130J Hercules, the AH64 Apache, potentially the Orion 2000 and many others.
In my judgment, an imposed and unnecessary bureaucratic and managerial superstructure will not enhance cost-effective European arms procurement. The NATO management agency and the NATO Eurofighter management agency, for the Tornado and the Eurofighter programmes—to provide only two examples—were bad enough. Where would such an agency be located? How would it be staffed? How would its programmes be funded? Would it not merely duplicate the work of NATO's committee of national armaments directors, which is already experienced in seeking to harmonise operational requirements and to maximise equipment standardisation between member states?
The main impetus to collaboration should be commercial rather than political. This is particularly true in a world in which there is a diminishing market for armaments and in which defence equipment exports are crucial for the prosperity of defence companies.
There is a final aspect of Europe's defence and security policy to which Britain can make a key contribution. The Sunday Telegraph of 2 June reported that the Foreign Affairs and Security Committee of the European Parliament had proposed in a draft report that the EU take over the nuclear weapons now owned by Britain and France. The draft report is alleged to say that, without them,
the European Union will never be able to adopt a common foreign and security policy".
Apparently, the report was adopted, and Marlene Lenz, a German Member of the European Parliament, was reported in The Sunday Telegraph as saying:
If we have a union, and we need a strong union, there should be a military capability to it—and nuclear weapons would be part of that".
That would circumvent the basic law of the Federal German Republic that forbids nuclear weapons, and as French sources have suggested that the French nuclear deterrent should be held in trust for the European Union, it is important to take those dangerous aspirations seriously—for dangerous they are.
A nuclear European Union would in effect be a super-power, incapable of fulfilling, as Britain must urge that it does, its nobler destiny, which is to transform itself into a genuine community of sovereign independent states—a community whose objectives are free trade and friendship, which would be an instrument for reconciliation and harmony within a reunited continent.

Sir Russell Johnston: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on securing a debate on this important issue, but it was a pity that his Euro-scepticism so coloured his speech, especially towards its conclusion, when he spent some time on the common agricultural policy. His political attitude to the Union, which is very different from mine, means that he found himself in a way contradicting his own knowledge of defence questions, and adopting what in my view are unrealistic positions.
Co-operation and yet more co-operation is the name of the game. That has long been argued by Liberals both in the House and elsewhere; it is not a new position. I remember vividly that almost 20 years ago, in 1977, in the European Parliament of which the hon. Gentleman is so disdainful, my noble Friend Lord Gladwyn was responsible for producing a trail-blazing report on common weapons procurement in Europe. We have come some way since those days, but not far or fast enough.
As recently as 13 June, the Institute for Public Policy Research produced a document called "About Turn, Forward March with Europe". I shall quote briefly from the press release that accompanied the publication of the book, which was edited by Jane Sharp, the director of the defence and security programme at the IPPR. Apparently the document

asserts that Britain can no longer afford, either politically or financially, to pursue a foreign and defence policy separately from her major European partners.
That contradicts what the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood said. The press release continues:
Britain must integrate more deeply with France and Germany at all levels of defence planning and procurement.
The link with the United States in NATO remains vital but Britain has to recognise that the special relationship with Washington is over. Britain can best influence world events in future as part of a strong and cohesive Europe.
The book is critical of much conventional thinking about defence",
and so on. That is a good basic position, very different from that outlined by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who speaks on such matters for our party, expressed the same feeling a couple of years ago in the Defence Industry Digest, succinctly and with the clarity that his legal mind gives him:
The European Union consists of many middle-ranking powers none of which can really afford"—
again the word "afford" is used—
to maintain a full range of capabilities but which collectively form an extremely formidable alliance. Burden sharing, force specialisation and common procurement are all areas that should be examined. Once the CFSP has developed there may be scope for greater equality in expenditure on security among member states. Britain and France, which"—
as the hon. Gentleman said
provide most of the capability, should be recompensed by those who spend less.
The German position, which the hon. Gentleman also touched upon, is changing and will continue to change. It has already changed, when Germany sent troops into former Yugoslavia, and it will change further. It will not remain static. The Franco-German Eurocorps and the British-Dutch marine force have developed slowly, but I think that those exercises point in the right direction.
I do not know whether the swear word "Maastricht" passed the hon. Gentleman's lips, but it certainly hovered in the air above him, so it might be useful if I remind the House exactly what the Maastricht treaty said when we passed it. As I recall, the Minister of State was most active at that time. The treaty called for the European Union to develop political co-operation, in particular through the implementation of
a common foreign and security policy including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence".
The language is cautious, very likely because of the United Kingdom's reservations, but the intent is clear. The treaty both sets an objective and recognises technical and financial realities.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood said that the Western European Union was possibly over-influenced by the European Union, partly but not entirely because of its location in Brussels. I believe that he said that it was subject to the risk of dread diseases by being stationed there. I am not sure whether I know what he means by the idea of "over-influence". The EU is not a monolith apart from the United Kingdom; the United Kingdom is part of it. The hon. Gentleman may not be happy about that, but it is a fact.
The United Kingdom's aim must be to work within the WEU, NATO and the EU. We must sit down with our colleagues there and work out political objectives. In our view the main flaw in previous defence reviews has been the fact that they have often been Treasury driven, rather than our having sat down and asked what we are capable of doing, who we are doing it with, how the activity should be shared out together, what we are prepared to undertake and what we are not prepared to undertake.
For example, we were prepared to undertake to try to control the situation in the former Yugoslavia, but if there were a widespread repetition of the Chechnya conflict in the Soviet Union I do not think that we would endeavour to intervene, because we do not have the capacity to do anything about such matters. We must draw lines, too.
I shall conclude by referring to the former Yugoslavia, because the hon. Gentleman touched on arms control at the end of his speech. I find the lifting of the arms embargo, which I believe took place yesterday, worrying. I do not think that it contributes much to the safety of our troops there, and I am sure that the French would agree with me. I should like to know what the Government's position is.
According to The Guardian today:
The Bosnian Serbs will face the most radical cuts in the region"—
the lifting of the embargo is based on concomitant cuts—
leaving them with 500 artillery pieces and 137 tanks, nearly halving their present force. The poorly-armed federation would have to acquire significant amounts of new equipment to reach its new ceilings of 273 tanks and 1,000 pieces of artillery.
Then cometh the crunch:
However, much will depend on verification procedures and these must rely on trust, a rare commodity.
It is indeed a rare commodity, which is still, sadly, virtually absent in the former Yugoslavia. Considering the risks that we and other western European countries—notably France and the Netherlands, as well as, of course, the Americans—have taken on ourselves to try to sort out a dreadful position, opening the floodgates to more arms entering the region is a mistake.

Mr. Edward Garnier: I am grateful to be called and particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) for choosing this subject for this morning's 11 o'clock debate. I do not think that we have debated a more important subject in the past few weeks. The importance of it is highlighted by the fact that it takes place in the interim between the first and second rounds of the Russian presidential elections. Whether my hon. Friend chose today and the subject for his debate knowing that that might be the backdrop or it was simply a gift from the Prince of Serendip does not matter. I congratulate him on the subject and the timing of the debate.
I agree wholeheartedly with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood said—in fact, almost 95 per cent. of it. Before we came into the Chamber, my hon. Friend confessed that he was going to make one or two generalisations. On the contrary, he made a highly detailed, well-argued and tightly constructed speech, which would have done the Europeans great credit. When I say the Europeans I mean

those in the 16th and 17th centuries who created those wonderfully detailed tapestries in the low countries. My hon. Friend's speech was excellent and taught us much.
It is regrettable that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood and I are the only Conservative Back Benchers present—he to make the speech and I to listen to it. Parliament is diminished and those whom we represent are less well served when such speeches are listened to only by those who have to be present and one or two others who feel it of interest to be present. I trust that what my hon. Friend said will be reported widely and digested with pleasure.
Not only those in my party have failed to attend this debate. I note that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) is wearing a very tasteful blue shirt, and I am particularly delighted that he has found time away from his duties in Scotland and elsewhere to be with us to represent his party. He always speaks with great learning and experience on foreign and defence policy, and although his speech—I hope that he will not think me rude—did not marry entirely with what my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood said, it was worth listening to. I hope that it will be digested—perhaps not quite so comfortably—by the great British public when it is read.
I look across the Chamber to the official Opposition. It is always a personal pleasure to see the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) because she speaks with great intelligence and sincerity. It is a pity that, behind her, the massed ranks of new Labour are notable for their absence rather than their presence. I am not blaming anyone, but it is worth observing that the Chamber is empty and it is a pity that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood has been listened to with such poverty in the numbers of the audience.

Ms Ann Coffey: Come on, get on with it.

Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood, who I know is a keen critic of Europe, devoted some of his speech to the common agricultural policy. I draw his attention to the fact that the European Union donates huge sums to—I think—the Greek economy to subsidise its tobacco farmers. One could not put a cigarette paper between what my hon. Friend said and what I, eventually, will get round to saying—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—on Britain's role in European defence and security policy. I fear, however, that we could put a complete cigar box between what the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber said and what my hon. Friend and I have to say.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): Not much tobacco is grown in Harborough.

Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend is quite right. We do not grow much tobacco in Harborough.
My hon. Friend the Minister may be able to form a bridge—in so far as one is necessary—between my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood and myself, but I fear that the gap between Inverness and Harborough is unbridgeable.
There are important lessons to be learnt not only from what my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood said but from the wider political scene in


Europe. We cannot understand Britain's role in Europe's defence and security policy without bearing in mind the Russian elections and what is going on there. There are three dominant themes at the centre of Russian politics at the moment. First, there is the continuing need for reform of the social and economic structure of that much-troubled country. Secondly, there is a desire for protection.
Over the past 10 or so years, there has been severe dislocation in Russian society—not only since the collapse of the iron curtain but before it. Millions of Russians see themselves as victims. They are homeless, poor and out of work and fear that they will not have a home, get a job or have the domestic security that they believe was their right. During the presidential elections, demands for the people of Russia and particular sectors of Russian industry to be protected were advocated.
The third theme that ran through the Russian elections was nationhood. Now, 25 million ethnic Russians live outside the borders of the Russian Federation. The Russians, whether they live within or without the Federation, have a deep and sometimes melancholic sense of nationhood. General Lebed, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood referred, and who came third in the presidential elections, is the author of "The Dash to the South". I understand that he is now the new ally of President Yeltsin, which leaves Zyuganov as the second-placed presidential candidate—the communist—and his only hope of victory lying in the hands of Zhirinovsky. That must have a profound and direct consequence for us and the way in which we look on our defence and security role in Europe.

Sir Russell Johnston: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman so early in his speech, but surely it was a matter of encouragement that support for Zhirinovsky fell by—I think—3 per cent.

Mr. Garnier: It was encouraging that Zhirinovsky got 4.8 per cent. or thereabouts—

Sir Russell Johnston: Five point five per cent.

Mr. Garnier: It was a relatively small amount but none the less significant when it comes to tactical voting in the second round. I do not want to become too bogged down in the detail of Russian politics in the debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood has initiated.
What is important to us is how the new, developing Russia will regard its near abroad after the shenanigans in Chechnya. How will it regard our desire for an enlarged NATO? Will it want to expand not contract its armed forces, especially its navy, to satisfy domestic concerns and protect what it sees as its expanding capitalist economy as it looks to new markets overseas? How does that touch on us? I suggest that it affects us directly and most vitally.
Politicians of all parties—including the two main Opposition parties and those outside the House—may whip themselves into a lather over local government spending, social security spending and its consequences for future tax breaks, and the BSE crisis which, of course, are all greatly important, but they shrink into

insignificance when one considers the matters that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood has addressed this morning. Another world exists outside Britain. It is changing and we ignore it at our peril.
Defence matters to us in a world where Russia is politically and economically unstable and unsure of its future and of how it is regarded by the rest of the world. Defence matters when the politicians and bureaucrats of western Europe are talking about closer integration, while our experience of eastern Europe, the Balkans and the former Soviet Union is of disintegration. Some of it, happily, has been peaceful, such as the split between the Czech and Slovak republics. Other experiences of the disintegration in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union have been profoundly violent. We need look no further than the former Yugoslavia to see an example of that.
One also needs look no further than the former Yugoslavia to see Britain's importance as a European military power with a significant and influential role to play. The work of our forces there is an example of our co-operation with our European allies, our NATO allies, those in the WEU and across the Atlantic as well as within the main continental bloc. I am glad that others have found time this morning to praise and draw attention to the work of our forces in that troubled country.
Defence matters in a world where the collapse of the Soviet bloc and the huge economic strains that that has caused has brought about huge economic migration from the eastern bloc into the west and where economic pressure has forced the peoples of northern Africa to move into southern Europe. It matters in a world where each country wishes to take a more or less aggressive stand against those who wish to move into it for economic reasons as opposed to reasons of racial, political or religious persecution.
Defence matters in a western Europe that will be failing if it refuses to look outside the confines of the European Union and to recognise the need for a strategic global overview, encompassing the transatlantic link with the United States and Canada. Europe must also recognise the importance of fostering relations with Japan and the other democracies of Asia and Australasia, not just commercially but militarily as well. An inward-looking, exclusive European Union that tries to hammer a wish list into a prefabricated mould of politically correct Europeanism, including a European standing army, a European Union foreign and security policy that takes no account of intergovernmentalism, national co-operation and the need for practical answers to questions of practicalities and which wishes to translate the WEU into the European Union and fails to see the continuing need for NATO right across our continent would be damaging and contrary to the interests of this country.
My criticism of those who advocate such policies is not to deny the need for unity of purpose or to say that this country has no place in the security picture of the European continent—far from it. We certainly need to be part of it. We have experience on the world stage as members of NATO and WEU and as one of the two European members of the permanent five on the UN Security Council. We also have military capability in manning and planning and good intelligence services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood read a passage from the European Union report published earlier this month about a desire to bring the nuclear


capability of individual member states such as France and the United Kingdom within the competence of the European Union machinery. That is deeply disturbing and misunderstands the needs of the future development of the European military scene. It misunderstands our natural desire to maintain an independent nuclear deterrent.
All the experience and skills that I have mentioned, our equipment, both nuclear and conventional, our will to protect our national interests wherever they are threatened, within or outside Europe and our determination to back our words with actions suggest that the British approach to the security of Europe is better and more realistic and will work.
Since our policy commands respect beyond the limits of the European Union, on the wider continent of Europe, in the United States and, at this juncture, in the Kremlin, it is the policy that should be preferred. Although I sincerely respect the views of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber, I suspect that the Liberal Democrats' views on co-operation mean something rather different from those of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood and me. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to reject them out of hand.

Ms Joyce Quin: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on his success in securing this Adjournment debate and on his choice of subject. This subject is often lost in wider defence debates or wider debates on the European Union such as the one that we will no doubt be having in the Chamber tomorrow. The debate has provided an opportunity to focus specifically on the hon. Gentleman's choice of topic. The choice of subject is timely because of the United Kingdom presidency of the Western European Union and because of the discussions taking place within the intergovernmental conference.
When I saw the subject for debate today I wondered whether a Defence Minister would represent the Government rather than a Foreign Office Minister. I hope that the fact that it is attended by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office means that the Secretary of State for Defence is temporarily silenced after his disgraceful speech the other evening. He should go back to his history books and remember that it was a Labour Government who helped to set up NATO. We need no lessons in patriotism from him. I was rather relieved to see that the editorial in the Daily Mail described his speech as one puffed up with "patriotic bombast". That described it nicely.
The speech of made by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood was interesting and was perhaps less strongly marked than usual with his suspicion of anything to do with the European Union, although there was a little bit of that, particularly in his exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall).
The hon. Gentleman made many valid points. One which I strongly endorse was that about the protectionist impulses in economic policy which some European countries are showing to countries of central and eastern Europe and to Russia. That is completely unacceptable. We have an economic duty to the countries of central and eastern Europe to be as open as we can. I believe strongly that it is in our long-term interests to be generous and to help create that large pan-European market that is capable of benefiting all the countries involved.
I shall comment on the Opposition's position on some of the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman and others. The Labour party has a strong commitment to NATO and see it as the cornerstone of our defence policy. Active membership of NATO and participation in it is an essential part of our defence strategy. Obviously, we agree with the comments made this morning about the fact that NATO is now, self-evidently, operating in a different European and world climate and that its role has to be re-evaluated in that respect while building on the co-operation and achievements that it already has to its credit.
Obviously, enlargement of NATO will be an important subject for years to come, and we very much welcome initiatives that have already been taken, through the Partnership for Peace programme, with many countries of central and eastern Europe and many countries who were formerly viewed as enemy countries and well outside any co-operative framework with NATO. Such Partnership for Peace programmes are important, as will be eventual enlargement of NATO, but we want enlargement of NATO to take place in a way that does not create new divisions in the European continent. We must consider that important aspect at every opportunity.
That does not mean giving Russia or anyone else a veto over any one country's application for membership, but it does involve ensuring that we work for and build a stable and peaceful European continent for the future. It is an especially difficult time for Russia, as many hon. Members have said. Obviously, we are glad that the elections in Russia took place on schedule, and we are keen, as I believe is everyone in the House, to support the continuing reform process in Russia, to help underpin democracy and to create economic relationships that will be vital for the future.
The WEU was mentioned by all participants in the debate. We welcome recent moves to strengthen the WEU as the European pillar of NATO. We welcome France's decision to reintegrate itself into NATO and to play an active part in the WEU, to which it has always been strongly attached, as it has been to NATO. We welcome the initiatives of the combined joint task forces, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood, and we welcome the initiatives regarding the Petersburg tasks—which he also mentioned—of peacekeeping, humanitarian relief and so on. We believe that there is room for the WEU to take several important initiatives and act in a distinctively European way, but in a way that does not cause political tensions in the transatlantic relationship. I do not envisage any significant danger of that happening. We want the WEU, not to duplicate NATO activities, but to be able to supplement and enhance the work of the wider alliance.
In terms of the role of the European Union in this process, we feel that the common foreign and security policy should remain a separate pillar in the pillar structure as we know it, and that decisions in the common foreign and security policy should be taken by unanimity. We do not see the European Union as taking over the Western European Union, and obviously there are question marks concerning the future development of a defence role for the European Union, which make progress in this area very difficult.
The 15 countries of the European Union have somewhat different defence traditions. Some have a neutral status, although the type of neutrality of countries


that profess neutral status varies case by case, naturally, because of the history of the countries concerned and their different traditions, and sometimes their different international links or geopolitical situation.
That means that, especially during the intergovernmental conference, it is unlikely that the position regarding European defence co-operation will change dramatically, but it would be interesting to hear from the Minister some more details about the discussions between European Union countries in that area.
We have all had an opportunity to read the report of the reflection group, in which the Minister of State participated, but that document is often very unsatisfactory in that it says, "Some countries thought this, some countries thought that," so we must rely on press leaks to find out what countries said and which countries committed themselves to specific policies. Perhaps, in the interests of openness in the European Union, the Minister might give us a few more details this morning about the breakdown between countries on the key issues of how the European defence identity may or may not develop in future, and what different countries in the European Union regard as the respective roles of the European Union and the Western European Union.
As the wider common foreign and security policy was mentioned, especially by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), perhaps the Minister will tell us something about the continuing thoughts of the Government about appointing a European Union foreign policy representative. I understand that the Foreign Secretary favoured that proposal but many of his hon. Friends did not.
I strongly support what was said by Opposition Members about the institutional links between the Western European Union and the European Union. We want closer relations between the WEU and the European Union; Brussels, which has been the home of NATO and the European institutions, would be an obvious place for that liaison to occur.
I am glad that there are now contacts between the WEU Assembly and Members of the European Parliament, especially the security and disarmament sub-committee of the European Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee. It makes sense that those Members of the European Parliament who are especially involved in examining that aspect of policy within the European Union framework are able to discuss regularly with their parliamentary counterparts in the WEU Assembly. I pay tribute to the work of my colleagues here on the WEU Assembly and to the Labour Members of the European Parliament who are involved in that liaison process.

Sir Russell Johnston: Often a false antithesis is made between the advisory Parliamentary Assembly of the WEU and the European Parliament; there are reports from the European Parliament of a sort of takeover. Does the hon. Lady agree that, even if WEU becomes more integrated into the European Union, that is no reason necessarily to abolish the advisory Parliamentary Assembly, which offers a useful outlet for national Parliaments to speak on defence matters in Europe?

Ms Quin: I agree. In any case, I do not envisage the abolition of the WEU Assembly, and I believe that

national parliamentarians who have built up expertise in that regard need to have a close dialogue with Members of the European Parliament, who come at it from a slightly different angle but who have an equal interest in parliamentary and public scrutiny of the matters being considered.
More generally, it appears that, despite the fears that some Members of the House occasionally express about competition between the European Parliament and national Parliaments, there is a great deal, especially in the short term, that can be done to improve joint scrutiny by both national and European Parliaments of many of the issues that are important in the eyes of the public, but are not publicly debated as much as we should like.

Mr. Wilkinson: I wish to add a further point to that made by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston). Is it not the case, though, that, as long as national Parliaments have responsibility for voting budgets for national defence, and as long as national Defence Ministers are answerable to those Parliaments—indeed, in some European Parliaments, the Defence Committees have very important roles—the purpose and function of the Assembly of WEU will be central to the formulation of a common European view on defence? That is not to say that there is no merit in Members of the European Parliament taking an interest; increasing interest in, and intelligent inquiry about, matters of defence, at whatever level in Europe, is all to the good.

Ms Quin: Obviously the budgetary aspects are important, but that does not undermine the importance of the institutional links between the two bodies, which are now more necessary than ever before and which need strengthening.
We also believe in the idea of back-to-back sessions between the WEU and the relevant institutions of the Council of Ministers, as offering more co-ordination and better dialogue between the WEU and the European Union. That would make a great deal of sense.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood also mentioned arms procurement. The Opposition can see important advantages in collaboration between European countries in arms production and in improving competition, but we have doubts about the way in which the system works at present. If a country is to have a 10 per cent. involvement in a project, it has to have 10 per cent. of the economic activity involved in the arms effort in question. That often seems to work against the interests of competitiveness and open tendering. Given the efficiency of some of our arms industries, we should bear this in mind when planning for the future.
Finally, I believe strongly that the end of the cold war presents us with enormous opportunities. Because of the growth of nationalisms and xenophobia in many parts of the EU—the latter is not always absent, unfortunately, from the United Kingdom—there is always a danger of renationalisation in this important area of defence and security policy. Labour does not want that to happen. We want the end of the cold war to be put to good purpose, by building on the achievements of the international co-operation that we already enjoy in defence and security matters. Based on our European and international commitments, we must try to build towards a wider, more peaceful, stable and prosperous European continent.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): Our debate takes place against the background of some important developments in the European security landscape. In Bosnia, British troops are playing a leading role in the success of IFOR—the NATO implementation force—which is the largest military operation in NATO's history. In NATO itself, important work on enlargement and the changes needed to adapt the alliance to new strategic realities is under way. There is also the intergovernmental conference, the agenda of which includes European security and defence.
I therefore congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on his choice of subject and I welcome the debate which, for these reasons and for others that my hon. Friend outlined, is especially timely.
All the speeches in this debate have been of a high quality. Although I do not agree with everything that has been said, hon. Members have put their arguments cogently. I must tell my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) that building a bridge between him and the Liberal Democrat spokesman on this subject is beyond my meagre abilities—although, as he remembers, I have spent some time bridge-building with him in the past.
Because the debate is so timely, some of the issues it covers are highly sensitive, so I shall choose my language with care today, for reasons that the House will understand. I might add, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin), that I am responding to the debate because, quite apart from its European dimension, my responsibilities cover international security, including NATO; the Western European Union; and nuclear weapons. There is no hidden agenda behind my appearance.
The term Europe's defence and security policy carries the risk of misinterpretation. Like many of the other catch-phrases—such as the European pillar of the alliance—it is something of a misnomer. I say that because our defence is not a purely European concern. It is primarily to NATO, a transatlantic organisation, that we owe the peace that we have enjoyed for the past 50 years, so when we consider Britain's role in European security and defence, it is right to start with our contribution to NATO.
That contribution remains substantial. On any measure, Britain more than pulls its weight. For example, our contribution to IFOR involves about 11,500 personnel—a much greater effort proportionate to population, gross domestic product or the size of our armed forces than any other nation has been able to make. We can all be rightly proud of the work of these service men and women. The shared values and interests on which the alliance was built remain as strong as ever. As Bosnia has shown, the American presence in Europe continues to be an essential contribution to security.
The end of the cold war does not mean that we no longer need to be ready to defend ourselves and to keep the Atlantic community together. For the British Government, a strong NATO remains the key; it informs everything that we do.
The experience in Bosnia has also shown that a greater European contribution is one of the most effective ways of keeping NATO strong. Two thirds of IFOR' s personnel

are European. France is fielding a substantial contingent—testimony to the strength that NATO will draw from France's welcome decision to participate more fully in the alliance. European countries outside NATO—Finland, Sweden, Russia and nine central European countries—are also making significant contributions.
The challenge that we face with IFOR, with future NATO operations and at the intergovernmental conference is to allow the widest possible range of European countries to contribute to security, but that must be done in a way that strengthens the Atlantic alliance. That, I believe, was the thrust of my hon. Friend's speech this morning.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) asked me a question about Bosnia. The United Kingdom is committed to keeping the balance of armaments at the lowest possible level consistent with regional security in that part of the world. The parties have committed themselves to agreed levels of armaments. The agreement was signed in Florence at the Bosnia review conference on 14 June. The NATO-led implementation force has agreed to verify compliance with the agreement, so compliance will not be, as the hon. Gentleman seemed to imply, voluntary. Verification will be done in conjunction with Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe arms control experts, leading to a verified reduction in the armaments held by some, particularly the Bosnian Serbs. Some room will be left for rearming by the Bosnian-Croat Federation, however.

Sir Russell Johnston: The fact that General Mladic is still at large and confident enough to go to Belgrade without being arrested—and still in charge of the Bosnian Serb army—leads many of us to doubt whether he will co-operate in any large-scale reduction in armaments.

Mr. Davis: I will not be drawn any further on this—nor would the hon. Gentleman expect me to be. My point stands.
Britain is leading the way towards the new flexibility goals in three key areas. First, the Atlantic alliance has not stood still as the world has changed around it. The end of the cold war and subsequent regional instability have changed the strategic environment radically. Since the fall of the iron curtain, Britain has played a key role in moving NATO towards the more flexible structure that is now required. The landmark decisions taken by NATO Ministers in Berlin on 3 June were a mark of our success. They pave the way for reform of NATO's command structure, allowing it to respond quickly and effectively to future regional crises such as the one that occurred in Bosnia.
Agreement on the combined joint task force concept will allow NATO headquarters facilities to be deployed systematically for operations involving NATO and non-NATO countries. The decision to build a European security and defence identity within NATO will allow the Western European Union to provide political control and strategic direction for European operations drawing on NATO assets, capabilities and planning.
The last point is of fundamental importance. It means, in effect, that a European identity can be built in partnership with NATO, using common structures. It also means that NATO will be able to draw strength from the desire of Europeans to do more for their security—both


in operations involving all the allies and, more rarely, when the United States does not wish to be directly involved in European operations under WEU political control. This ends the prospect of any European Union identity competing with NATO—that is an important point.
Secondly, no one would claim that the Western European Union has been a central player in European security during the past 50 years, important though its actions have been. It gained useful experience in operations in the Gulf and in Yugoslavia. It will need more experience, and robust machinery for control and direction of operations using NATO assets, if it is to fulfil the role accorded to it at Berlin.
That role will not involve operations of the scale and complexity of IFOR. Such tasks must continue to be carried out by European countries working together with our north American partners. The Western European Union should be able to carry out smaller peacekeeping and humanitarian tasks, working closely with NATO and the European Union. Giving the WEU the necessary operational capability to do just that has been the top priority for the British presidency of the WEU in the first half of this year.
We have made considerable progress over the past six months. This is summarised in the declaration of the Western European Union Ministers at Birmingham on 7 May, a copy of which has been deposited in the Library. In short, we have developed working links with NATO. The conclusion of a security agreement between the two organisations last month means that the WEU will be able to receive classified NATO intelligence and information in the future.
We have promoted practical co-operation between the WEU and the EU where it makes sense for the two organisations to work together, such as in relation to evacuation planning and Mostar. We have established within the WEU a situation centre and an intelligence section, both of which are vital if the WEU council is to have the up-to-the-minute information that is needed to make operational decisions.
We have made it easier for the widest possible range of European countries to contribute to the work of the WEU by agreeing to procedures for the participation of neutral countries in WEU operations, by allowing the central European associate partners to play a greater role and by strengthening relations with Russia and the Ukraine. I am grateful for the recognition that all these measures received in the Defence Committee's recent report on the WEU, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood referred.
These developments, and the decisions taken by NATO Foreign Ministers at Berlin, are of fundamental importance for the intergovernmental conference—which is the third area that I intend to address. Defence is one of the issues that Maastricht agreed should be reviewed at the IGC. In our view, there is no urgent need to rewrite the provisions of the Maastricht treaty that deal with defence. The IGC is not central to the future of European defence—the success of IFOR and NATO adaptation is much more important to the evolution of what is sometimes called the European security architecture. The

IGC must avoid decisions that are driven by institutional theology rather than operational logic—that is an important point.
Arrangements for European security and defence must respond not only to a desire for bureaucratic or institutional tidiness, but to the real security challenges that we face in the years ahead. That is why we will continue to oppose proposals that aim at an eventual merger of the EU and WEU, or subordinating the WEU to the authority of the EU. Those approaches are simply not practical—they would be a recipe for less effective, not more effective, European action.
Not all members of the EU are full members of the WEU. It would be wrong for countries that do not share obligations to defend each other's territory as enshrined in article V of the Washington treaty and to have an equal say in decisions on defence binding those who do. The Berlin Foreign Ministers' communiqué makes quite clear that NATO assets and capabilities are to be made available on a case-by-case basis for European operations under the control and direction of WEU.
It is not realistic to expect allies to make these assets available if the EU ultimately gives the orders. The EU has neither the expertise nor the purely intergovernmental structure necessary for the life-and-death decisions that are needed during military operations. There can be no question of the Government allowing the Commission, the European Parliament or the European Court of Justice a say in decisions affecting the safety of British forces; the IGC can complement the progress already made in NATO and the WEU towards effective and credible arrangements open to a wide range of European countries.
Last year, the Prime Minister set out in the House our approach to defence at the IGC. He made clear that keeping NATO strong as the bedrock of European security would be our first priority. That remains the case, and it will always remain the case. He underlined our determination to develop European defence co-operation in the WEU as a means of strengthening NATO. He proposed a reinforced partnership between the EU and an autonomous WEU so that the political, economic and military elements of European crisis management could be properly co-ordinated.
I shall now address some of the specific points that hon. Members have raised during the debate and, first, I refer to co-operation in defence equipment procurement. We play a full and active part in the western European armaments group, which is the main forum for the discussion of issues related to European armaments co-operation. We are also exploring with France and Germany the conditions for cooperation within the armaments structure that they have pioneered. Both countries have agreed in principle to United Kingdom participation. This is good news for British industry and for the British taxpayer. Discussions with France and Germany are at a preliminary stage at this point. We hope to start work soon on an intergovernmental memorandum of understanding that will define in more detail how the armaments structure will work.
We believe that intergovernmental decision-making remains the correct approach to this and to all other policy areas related to defence, but we have no desire for a "Fortress Europe" to develop. We value our transatlantic defence trading relationship and we will continue to conduct business with the United States where that best


suits our requirements. We remain committed to value for money and to competition in our procurement. European protectionism is a recipe for stagnation, as the hon. Member for Gateshead, East said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood raised the question of a specifically European nuclear deterrent. I see no advantage in addressing this issue outside the transatlantic framework. Nuclear deterrence is bound up with the defence of our territory and that of our allies. Collective territorial deterrence is a matter for Europeans and north Americans working together in NATO. No Government are seriously suggesting that that should change—we certainly are not.
I agree that to give the EU military responsibilities for which it is not equipped would impede the task of extending stability and prosperity to the east. It would create a new obstacle to EU membership for central European countries and it would unnecessarily provoke Russian fears—a point that was touched on by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough and by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood.
The developments in NATO and in the WEU that I have described today reflect the considerable progress we have made, but more can be done in the EU to improve the working relationship with the WEU. The Maastricht treaty already provides for the EU to request action from the WEU, and access to NATO assets and capabilities will put it in a much stronger position to respond to such requests in future. However, the habit of practical co-operation that we have been encouraging over the past six months must be built up if the two organisations are to work together effectively in such cases. We have proposed back-to-back arrangements from the highest level down to facilitate that.
There is sometimes a tendency in Europe to mistake pragmatism for a lack of vision. That could not be further from the truth in this case. Our approach to the IGC is based on a clear view of the defence and security policies that are needed to preserve peace and prosperity in Europe. It is underpinned by an ability and a readiness to deploy military force when circumstances require it. That ability makes our voice in the debate an influential one and it ensures that Britain will continue to play a leading role in Europe's defence and security policy.

River Claw (Pollution)

Miss Emma Nicholson: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this subject, and I am glad that I have been called to introduce it a little earlier than I or the Minister expected. I raise an important matter regarding an incident that is crucial for my constituents. Although the Environment Agency and the farming family concerned have acted speedily and efficiently, the Minister may like to consider some points about the incident in planning for the future.
On Sunday 9 June, the Environment Agency received a telephone call from a member of the public who had been walking her dog along the banks of the River Claw near Holsworthy. Farming in that area is particularly difficult because most of the land around Holsworthy is classified as grade 4—the lowest ranking of land for agricultural use in our ranking system. Land categorised as grades 1 or 2 may be used to grow grain, but land graded 3 or 4 is much more difficult to cultivate. In the Holsworthy area, we are very grateful for funding for culm measures related to a rare form of wild grass that grows in the heavy clay. I am told by local bank managers that farmers in the Holsworthy area never borrow money as they cannot repay it. That demonstrates how slender farmers' incomes are.
The incident involved a local farm. A member of the public noted that five miles or so of the river had been turned a dark brown colour by slurry, which is poisonous. The Environment Agency later described the contamination as a category 1 incident. Its senior water quality officer called it a "very serious and regrettable incident". The source of the contamination was a small family dairy farm, and I pay tribute to the way in which the farmer reacted to the problem. He is anxious that I should not name him, and I shall not do so. The farmer had done the right things and he had the appropriate insurance cover. His waste management system was maintained to a high standard and was checked recently by the National Rivers Authority and identified as being 100 per cent. effective.
However, there was unusually high rainfall over the weekend of 7 June. As the water level in the farm's dirty water tanks rose, the automatic sprinkler system was triggered and the water seeped into an old, unidentified drainage pipe in a field. It then leaked into a tributary of the Claw. The clean-up operation continues. Thousands of gallons of a poisonous slurry and silage mix have entered the river, starving it of oxygen and resulting in the sad loss of trout, stone loach, salmon and bullheads.
I suggest that the incident represents a major test for the new Environment Agency, which began its operations on 1 May this year. Its handling of the clean-up has been good—even though the incident is far more serious than first thought. My main concern today is to ask the Minister: if such devastation can be caused by an otherwise well-maintained waste system, what are the chances of such devastation occurring again not just in Devon, but nationally? For example, is the Environment Agency working closely with South West Water, which must have known that the drainage pipe existed? The contamination was classified as a category 1 incident, which is the most serious. However, there have been five such incidents in the six weeks or so the agency has been up and running. That is a worrying statistic.
The Minister will no doubt refer to the decline in agricultural pollution in the south-west region. The record shows a welcome improvement in that regard. In 1995, there were 975 incidents—a decrease of 50 on the previous year. That represented 21 per cent. of total pollution compared with 24 per cent. in the previous year.
Farming is the main industry in my constituency and I represent in this place the views of just under 4,000 farmers. I try to protect their quality of life and their incomes. The low pollution figures are excellent, as food production, processing and distribution are very important to my constituency.
The considerable losses that dairy and beef farmers in my constituency face as a result of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crises may spread to the wider sphere of food production, processing and distribution. That trilogy forms the mainstay of the local economy and of productivity in my constituency. The Government have so far focused correctly on the plight of farmers, slaughterers and renderers, but perhaps they could look more closely at the needs of manufacturers.
One firm in my constituency, CPC (UK) Ltd., is concerned about the way in which several of the beef-related products across its wide brand portfolio have been affected by the crisis. For example, several countries are refusing to accept exports of Bovril. I would be grateful if the Minister would consider that matter and inform his colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
In my great farming constituency, farm pollution represented a lower proportion of the total pollution in Devon last year than in the previous year. That is an excellent result. The figures were due perhaps to an exceptionally dry summer and to the fact that in 1994 and 1995 dairy farming enjoyed a period of relative prosperity which allowed farmers to invest in farm pollution control. It is proper that the polluter should pay, but I draw the attention of the House to the fact that many farmers in my constituency have small net disposable incomes at the end of the financial year—some as low as £1,500.
Unfortunately, we cannot always rely on good weather to ensure environmental safety. There is now a real danger that, as dairy and beef farming incomes go into reverse as a result of the BSE crisis and its many ramifications, many farmers will find it increasingly difficult to afford that crucial investment. I do not suggest that the large numbers of cattle that are backed up on farms awaiting disposal are adding significantly to the present pollution load—after all, they are mostly out at grass. However, if significant numbers of cows are still awaiting disposal in the autumn, the incidence of environmental pollution from slurry will increase dramatically. That adds to the importance of speeding up the necessary disposal of cattle.
A matter that relates directly to the Under-Secretary's portfolio is Government support for waste water schemes. The current difficulties of the beef and dairy industry are compounded by the withdrawal of Government support for farmers who install waste water systems. The grants were originally 50 per cent. of the cost of an effective storage and control system for dirty water from farms. They were reduced to 25 per cent. and then abolished completely. Those grants were not intended to boost

farmers' profits, slender though those are in my constituency, but were for the sole purpose of environmental clean-up. If the Government wish environmental clean-ups to continue, surely those grants should be reinstated.
I seek an assurance from the Government that they will not sacrifice environmental concerns in a quest to cut costs. My concern over the lack of Government resources allocated to protecting the environment also applies to the Environment Agency. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution said in 1995 that it could find the staff for fewer than three out of five necessary site visits to ensure compliance with regulation by the industry. Staffing levels have not been increased in the new Environment Agency. The chief executive has pointed out that he has 1,200 fewer staff than was expected when plans were drawn up for the agency two years ago.
Surely those staff are essential if we are to ensure that waste storage systems are maintained and used properly and that regulations are understood and enforced. Perhaps the Under-Secretary should learn the lesson and understand the importance of ensuring compliance, especially if he looks sideways at the Ministry of Agriculture and the way in which the BSE crisis has been handled since 1985.
The Government's stated concern for the environment is also qualified, unacceptably, by a cost-benefit analysis laid down in the Environment Act 1995, under which the costs of actions by the agency have to be justified before they are implemented. It is therefore possible for someone to make a legal challenge on the costs and benefits of an agency decision that he should install expensive pollution equipment. That situation will lead to what is known as paralysis by analysis. The position is further complicated by the fact that non-financial benefits are difficult to measure against straightforward financial costs. Respect for economic effects of environmental protection is right and proper, but not to the extent of interfering with proper monitoring. I ask the Under-Secretary to consider that point.
A former Member of the House, Lord Crickhowell, who is also a former chairman of the National Rivers Authority, provided a forewarning of the problem when he said that there must be
a mechanism for discovering what those costs are and for putting values on the environmental benefits. If that mechanism is not provided there is a real risk that almost all the Agency's decisions will be challenged to appeal, or worse, in the courts.
I ask the Under-Secretary to comment on that point also.
The Government's promises on the environment, as they affect my constituency, are laid bare by a reluctance to provide the proper resources and are riddled with qualifications. The farmers in my constituency, especially the farmer to whom this unfortunate incident occurred on 9 June, and I need reassurance from the Under-Secretary today that everything is being done that can be done to prevent such incidents from happening again. At present, to me at least, the evidence for that seems uncertain.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I can give the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson) assurance on the points that she raised. I shall set out the important issues implicit in


the incident and, especially, our understanding of the cause of the incident on the River Claw; the remedial and other measures that were taken by the Environment Agency in its aftermath; whether any longer-term effects will arise from the incident; what action may be taken as a result of the incident; and our policy on minimising the risk of water pollution from agricultural sources.
I should, however, like to begin by thanking the public-spirited member of the public, to whom the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon referred, who brought the incident to the attention of the Environment Agency and thereby allowed action to be taken at an early stage. I understand that the alert was given using the 24-hour free emergency pollution hotline which the agency operates and which was introduced by the National Rivers Authority in 1993. Last year, the hotline handled more than 30,000 calls, all of which were intended to allow prompt action to be taken to help protect the water environment. Once again, that initiative has shown its worth.
The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon gave a description of the River Claw, which is a tributary of the Tamar. The catchment is predominantly intensively farmed grassland, used for stock rearing. The origin of the incident appears to have been a stock farm in the upper reaches of the Claw near Holsworthy. The cause of the pollution, which the hon. Lady described, seems to have been liquid farm waste that contained some slurry. The hon. Lady called the liquid "poisonous" and I will describe its effects later, but it is important to clarify that it was liquid manure.
Slurry is organic waste. It is polluting not because it is persistent or contains toxic substances but because it has a high biochemical oxygen demand—in other words, it depletes oxygen levels in waters which it enters because micro-organisms have to absorb additional oxygen to break down the organic material. The biochemical oxygen demand of cattle slurry may be up to 12,000 mg per litre compared to perhaps 50 mg per litre for treated domestic sewage. Thus it has a severe, if relatively short-lived, impact. That is why we have measures in place to require slurries to be stored in a safe manner—measures to which I shall return later.
In the incident on 9 June, a large quantity of liquid waste appears to have drained from a store to a "low rate" irrigation system used for disposal of dirty water by sprinkling to land, as the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon mentioned. As a result, the polluted water was spread on to land by the irrigator and then entered the land drainage system and the river, resulting in the incident on Sunday afternoon 9 June.
Spreading dirty water to land to dispose it under controlled conditions is generally an acceptable method, but in this case the effects were disastrous. I understand the points made by the hon. Lady, but at this stage it remains unclear to the Environment Agency why the polluting matter drained from the store to the dirty water disposal system and why there was such a rapid loss of liquid from the store. It seems that the irrigator itself may have been operated in a manner that does not accord with the guidance given in the Government's code of good agricultural practice.

Miss Emma Nicholson: The farmer's waste management system had been cleared 100 per cent.

favourably by the NRA only weeks previously. I remind the Under-Secretary that, of course, in normal circumstances slurry is not poisonous to humans, but at the time of the BSE scare we have to be especially careful with all waste products from animals that may be cull cows.

Mr. Clappison: I am sure that the hon. Lady will accept that I was trying to be precise when I described the exact effects of slurry. The important point, as I am sure she will agree, is the effect of slurry on fish and other wildlife. The hon. Lady's description of the incident is based on the information she has, but the matter will be subject to further investigation and I will describe that later. I hope that the hon. Lady will understand if I am somewhat circumspect in my remarks about the incident.
Whatever the cause, the effects of the entry of the polluting matter were severe. Oxygen levels in the Claw fell from 88 per cent. saturation, which is about what would normally be expected, to zero. About 3 km of the river turned dark brown. As a result, there was considerable fish mortality in the stretches affected before remediation began. The agency estimates that between 2,500 and 3,000 fish may have died, of which perhaps about 400 were brown trout.
The agency took remedial measures and initially focused on providing information to other relevant bodies and assessment of the polluting impact of the incident in order to concentrate remedial action in the most effective manner. The closest abstraction point for potable supply is about 45 km from the incident, so there was no threat to drinking water supply.
One of the main strands of remedial action was to save as many fish as possible. That was achieved with considerable success, I am pleased to say. About 1,700 fish were saved, of which over half were either trout or juvenile salmon. These fish were transferred to waters downstream of the incident. The second strand was to remove the polluted water from the river through pumping. Again this proved successful. The third was to re-oxygenate the river as rapidly as possible. This was achieved through the insertion of a mechanical whisk in the polluted stretch that re-aerates the water, as well as the use of other aeration equipment at other strategic sites in the Claw, to assist re-oxygenation. In addition, hydrogen peroxide—it is a strong oxidising agent—was used to introduce oxygen at strategic sites.
These remedial measures were undertaken between 9 and 12 June. By 12 June the oxygen levels in the Claw had recovered to the standards before the incident and remediation ceased. The incident was declared closed by the agency on 12 June.
The longer-term effects of the incident will be of concern. Slurry is biodegradable and the pollution was therefore primarily transient. The Claw is categorised as a class 2 river under our river ecosystem classification system, which requires, among other things, a dissolved oxygen level of better than 70 per cent. saturation. It is unlikely that there will be any longer-term diminution in the high quality of the river as a result of the incident. The agency will, however, be monitoring the manner in which the river recovers from the incident.
The main longer-term effects will be in relation to biological communities in the river. It may take up to 12 months for the invertebrates to recover. For fish, the


recovery period will be even longer. The agency will be considering whether there is a need to improve spawning grounds to assist the development of fish populations. An alternative would be to introduce new stock to the river. As I have said, the incident had no consequences for any public use of the river, including drinking water supply.
The agency made use of its powers under section 161 of the Water Resources Act 1991 to undertake remedial work. It is now open to the agency to seek to recover the costs that it has incurred from any person who may have caused or knowingly permitted the polluting matter to enter the river, so that the polluter pays for the costs associated with his actions. I understand that the agency intends to take such action. I noted the hon. Lady's support for the important principle that the polluter must pay.
The agency has been gathering information that might be used to support a prosecution for an offence of polluting controlled waters under the 1991 Act. A decision on whether to take such action will be a matter for the agency. It is, however, the agency's policy to prosecute major pollution incidents where there is sufficient evidence and it is possible to do so as the person concerned can be identified. For the reasons I gave following the hon. Lady's intervention, I do not wish to say any more on that subject. I have set out the general legal framework that applies to this incident and to all others.
It has long been an offence under water pollution law to cause or knowingly permit the entry of poisonous, noxious or polluting matter to fresh waters. This approach has been successful in ensuring that those who undertake actions that are potentially polluting do so in the knowledge that they are liable for the consequences to the water environment of their actions. We should all recognise, however, that, although it is important to be able to take action where pollution has occurred, it is better to prevent that pollution in the first place.
Accordingly, in the agriculture sector, the Government have adopted an approach that employs both regulatory controls and advice and guidance to farmers and growers on how to carry out their activities in a manner that reduces the risk of water pollution. That is important. The guidance is found primarily in the code of good agricultural practice produced by the Ministry of Agriculture, which is being revised. The code has proved highly successful in setting out for farmers, their staff and contractors who handle, store, use, spread or dispose of any substances that could pollute water, the causes and results of water pollution, how best to minimise the risk of such pollution through their operations and what to do in an emergency.
The code includes extensive guidance on the principles of storing and applying livestock wastes and other organic wastes to land as well as the storage of slurry and the operation of dirty water systems. The guidance supports the regulatory requirement which we have introduced for the storage of slurry via the control of pollution regulations of 1991. The regulations specify that slurry must be kept in a reception pit or slurry storage tank, whether this is a pit, lagoon or above-ground store. They set out minimum requirements for the design and construction of such facilities.
We have recently consulted on changes to the 1991 regulations, but none is concerned with the basic standards that are applicable to the stores in question. For example, bases must be impermeable. Bases and walls must be protected against corrosion and must be capable of withstanding characteristic loads. The storage tank must have a life of at least 20 years. Failure to comply with these regulations is an offence.
I am pleased to say that the measures to which I have referred have led to some considerable successes. Farmers are certainly among those who are most concerned about the environment. They are naturally anxious to do all that they can to avoid polluting incidents.

Miss Emma Nicholson: I am glad to hear the Minister's description of the code of conduct. He knows, however, that farmers are subject to many different Government guidelines and, possibly, grants to assist them. Will he consider suggesting to his colleagues, or putting in place himself, a one-stop shop for farmers, to which they could turn to obtain advice on improving their land, on environmental matters and on available grants? It is difficult for a farmer, who is a one-family man these days, to be able to plug into all the different rules and regulations to gain proper advice and grant assistance without a one-stop shop.

Mr. Clappison: I note what the hon. Lady says. In context, the important issue is that advice has been made widely available to farmers. There is clear evidence, to which the hon. Lady adverted, that the process has been successful. The number of incidents has been falling. There is an improving picture of pollution from the sources that we are discussing. The total number of substantiated pollution incidents reported in 1995 reflected a fall of 8 per cent. Within that total, the number of incidents attributable to agricultural sources fell by 18 per cent. The number of agricultural incidents was the lowest since the formation of the NRA in 1989. Moreover, the number of major agricultural incidents—that is the highest category showing a serious effect, such as substantial fish kill—fell from 239 in 1989 to only 32 in 1995.
That is a pleasing development that reflects the efforts that the NRA and now the agency have been making in visiting farmers and undertaking anti-pollution campaigns. I know, for example, that the agency has been working with farmers in the upper Tamar on how to manage farm waste to reduce the risk of pollution. I am sure as well that it is a good reflection on farmers in the area which the hon. Lady described.
The proportion of major pollution incidents attributable to agriculture has fallen from 36 per cent. in 1989 to 17 per cent. in 1995. There is still room for improvement, but considerable strides have been taken in the right direction. As a recent agency report on pollution incidents concluded:
This has been achieved by a combination of publicity, pollution prevention, regulations and farm waste grants. It clearly demonstrates that the risk of pollution can be significantly reduced if a sufficient co-ordinated approach is taken.
It should be clear from my explanation of the incident and from the background of our general policy that the Environment Agency should be congratulated on its prompt reaction, which averted some of the worst consequences of a major incident. The hon. Lady accepted


that the agency had performed well. The incident is now over, in the sense that oxygen levels in the river have returned to normal, but the agency will consider whether further action is needed to assist the recovery of fish populations.
I hope that this explanation puts into context the results of what seems to have been a failure to comply with requirements and guidance that, generally, have been successful in limiting pollution by slurry and other farm wastes. There is still room for improvement, but such incidents are, thankfully, very much the exception rather than the rule. I am sure that the hon. Lady and the House will join me in hoping that improvements will continue and that the number of such incidents will continue to fall.
I listened carefully to the wider points that the hon. Lady made about the costs and benefits implicit in the approach of the Environment Agency. She will know that the agency, which was the product of the Environment Act 1995, was widely welcomed and supported. I imagine that the hon. Lady herself would have supported the Environment Bill, which applied well-established principles, including that of best available techniques not entailing excessive cost, which has been successful and widely welcomed. Some measure of the success of that principle can be seen in the fact that it has been adopted implicitly in European directives covering this subject, and that our system of integrated pollution control has also served as a model for such directives.
On those issues, we are on the right lines, and I am sure that the hon. Lady will join me in hoping that the improvement in the reduction in the number of incidents of agricultural pollution will continue.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): As the Minister who will reply to the next debate is not present, the sitting is suspended until 1 pm.

Sitting suspended.

Highways (Trenchless Technology)

On resuming—

1 pm

Sir Roger Moate: Essentially, this is a debate about holes—millions of holes in our roads, causing delay and disruption to millions of motorists and costing the United Kingdom millions of pounds each year. It is about the digging up of our roads so that public utilities and cable companies can lay or renovate pipes or cables. According to one estimate, the resulting disruption costs £1 billion a year—and that does not include the cost to the frazzled nerves of road users, not to mention Members of Parliament.
There is ample evidence, however, that much of the dislocation is unnecessary and avoidable. Many of the holes in our roads would not be needed if Britain made fuller use of the trenchless technologies—the underground moling techniques—that are apparently used more extensively abroad. Much of the technology is, in fact, British. Why are we so slow to use it, and to insist that roads are not dug up when moling would often be quicker, cheaper and better? Should we not always be obliged to ensure that this new technology is used wherever it might be seen to be better, and to ensure that repairs and installations are tested against its availability?
Nationally, we face a massive programme of repairs to underground services. Let me shamelessly borrow a quotation from a paper prepared by Mr. Nick Taylor of Aegis Survey Consultants Ltd., which does underground survey work. He quotes Rome's water commissioner as saying:
these numerous and extensive works have a natural tendency to fall into decay and must be attended to before they call for large appropriations".
That was said in AD 97, but I expect the same to be true in 1997. Like, I suspect, many other hon. Members, I have encountered an increasing number of problems as a result of necessary repairs to leaking underground water pipes. The problem is acute: it is the same problem as existed in ancient Rome, but it is on an even larger scale now.
The purpose of today's debate is to try to ensure that, in future, all works are carried out, wherever it is practicable and sensible, with the use of no-dig techniques. I understand that, in 1993, of all utility installation work—I am told that it involves about 8,000 holes a day—only 5 per cent. was carried out with the use of trenchless construction methods.
There is a large and growing industry described as the no-dig industry. I have had contact with that industry through a company in my constituency called Powermole International. Some time ago, it put me in touch with the International Society for Trenchless Technology. The society has an impressive magazine called No-Dig International. There are international conferences and exhibitions, attended by a surprisingly large number of national and international companies specialising in work of this kind.
I have received information from such companies. It is remarkably interesting to learn about the fast-developing range of new technologies that are available for installing, repairing, replacing and mapping underground services; yet people still seem reluctant to use those techniques wherever possible in the United Kingdom. According to


the feedback that I receive, there is still a resistance to the use of trenchless technologies, or to ensuring that work is tested against their availabilities.
According to a letter from an international company that operates in Europe, the middle east and Africa,
the present levels of No Dig activities throughout these territories are currently strongest in the Middle East where micro tunnelling is an established means of installing pipelines under many of the cities and the highways … although there are several contractors in the United Kingdom who are using micro tunnelling, only about 2 per cent. of the current installation market uses such techniques. The reasons for this are probably largely down to ignorance or indifference.
Let me illustrate the point from my own experience. The company that I mentioned earlier—Powermole International in Sittingbourne—produces compressed air-powered tunnel borers, ranging from very small to very large machines. I understand that the gas industry is one of the most extensive users of the technology. I shall not venture a criticism of that industry, but even it needed a gentle nudge from the local Member of Parliament to persuade it to tunnel under the busy A2 near Faversham when installing a major new pipeline across the countryside. Had it gone ahead and dug a trench across that busy road, my constituents would have suffered serious traffic hold-ups for a long time. Full marks to the gas company: it did the right thing and tunnelled—but that should have been automatic. The nudge should not have been necessary.
I saw another demonstration in Sittingbourne high street in my constituency. A gas main was replaced in a day; had the work been done by conventional means, as is so often the case, the road would have been up for a week. The same company ran two large steel tubes under the fearfully busy A249, ramming 17 metres of tubing under the road at a rate of five minutes per metre. It was done in about 85 minutes, while the massive amount of traffic that was passing overhead continued undisturbed. Conventional means would have cost five times as much, and would have brought chaos to the road.
That company is selling its products abroad, but, although they are clearly world-class products, it seems much harder for it to achieve success here in the United Kingdom. I have no doubt that other national and international companies all over Britain will tell the same story. I hope that the House will not mind my referring to the company in my constituency; I do so to illustrate the importance of the whole industry, and the need for our country to harness these resources. No doubt other hon. Members could tell the same story about companies in their constituencies.
As my hon. Friend the Minister will know, the Transport Research Laboratory commissioned a study, completed in 1993, of the potential for reducing costs resulting from the installation of utility services under our roads. The report identified the direct, indirect and social costs, and clearly spelled out the importance of reducing disruption and dislocation. I believe that it provided the figure of about £1 billion in disruption costs. I understand that it also mentioned the importance of using trenchless technology at the planning and design stages of work.
What steps have been taken since? The study suggested that the Department of Transport should ensure that highway authorities throughout the United Kingdom examined, on every occasion, the possibility of using trenchless technology.
No one is suggesting that trenchless technology is a panacea. There will be many occasions when it will not be appropriate and holes will have to be dug—it does not magically do away with the need to dig holes. It could substantially reduce disruption, however, if the utilities and highway authorities insisted on no-dig techniques where possible.
I do not think that that would require a change of legislation—indeed, I gather that I am not allowed even to call for a change of legislation in an Adjournment debate—but perhaps the Department of Transport could toughen its codes of conduct and guidelines and demand that any contractor carries out all works in a non-disruptive fashion. Perhaps a legal obligation could be placed on those who dig the road to ensure that they minimise disruption and check the best techniques.
Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister should commission a further study into progress in reducing unnecessary road digging and into the extension of the use of no-dig techniques. There are many advantages in avoiding extensive, traditional trenching, such as the prevention of immense damage to trees and plants and the cutting of roots.
Holes and trenches create road safety hazards, and, when access to premises is disrupted, interfere with commerce and industry. Vehicles that are needlessly stuck in large traffic jams cause environmental pollution. Trenchless methods do not create large quantities of spoil and backfill, so they are environmentally friendly and cleaner, and cause less dirt, dust and pollution.
Trenchless methods are perceived as more expensive. I have seen no evidence to support that and I doubt that it is true, particularly when disruption costs are taken into account. I wonder whether there is an inertia factor, because many contractors or subcontractors would prefer to use their existing equipment and labour force, but how sad it would be if Britain were to continue to operate an old-fashioned and inefficient method when the alternatives are readily available and could be used rapidly, to the great benefit of road users and the economy.
The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 was designed to reduce unnecessary digging and to create a register. I should be grateful if the Minister would say whether the register is in operation, and, if it is, whether it is working well. If it is not, when will it be, and what do we hope it will achieve? As a result of the Act, has there been a reduction in unnecessary and repetitive road digging by the public utilities? If there has been, it is not obvious to me as a road user.
Other countries have tougher legislation. American utilities do not have the statutory rights that our companies have, and tougher legislation may prove necessary in the United Kingdom. But how much better it would be if we could encourage a change in national attitude, so that all public authorities simply and forcefully demand that preference is given to the use of trenchless technology. That will happen only if they have clear guidance from Government. We ask this not necessarily for the sake of the companies concerned,


small or large—although I say, good luck to them all—but to provide a better deal for the British road user and taxpayer and for the environment.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Steve Norris): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) for introducing what might at first glance appear to be a rarefied subject—trenchless technology—but one that is extremely important.
My hon. Friend rightly suggested that we cannot afford to ignore this issue. Trenchless technology is a generic term for techniques that essentially allow equipment to be installed or replaced under the street without breaking the surface—the no-dig concept. One example of this technology is a mole that can bore a tunnel between shafts that may be some distance from the street.
There is no doubt that such technology can be useful in reducing traffic disruption from street works. My hon. Friend rightly said that, even now, a number of industry experts believe that the full benefits or potential benefits of trenchless technology are not as well understood as they might be. That is a matter not just for the Department and local authorities but for those who sell the technology and develop it commercially.
The Department is clear that, as an alternative to open-cut trenching, trenchless methods have considerable advantages, the principal of which is that it generally costs less. For example, there is no doubt that they will be significantly less expensive for running a cable under a road—a classic application. Disruption on the surface is minimised: my hon. Friend gave a valid example from his area that could be replicated throughout the country.
Trenchless tunnelling is safer for operators and for the general public, and it improves relations between the utilities and the general public, because nothing more irritates the general public and upsets their relations with, for example, the gas or electricity boards than endless disruption of local streets.
Reduced environmental and social costs are associated with the technology. My hon. Friend gave some specific and graphic examples, and the effects of fully or partially closing a road, thereby severely restricting traffic flows, are quite serious.
There are, however, some disadvantages to trenchless technology—it is not necessarily a panacea in each case. I am advised that there are limitations on the use of the technology in certain ground conditions, and there is still the prospect of failure during operations, which can be extremely disruptive. The accuracy range of the technology is limited, and operators must be highly skilled.
The Department does not formally promote the use of the technology for street works, but disruption of the highway has become an increasingly important issue in recent years, not least because of the advent of the cable companies and the tremendous explosion in information technology that has resulted in countless new cables being laid, along with the expansion and upgrading of the sewerage system, and the supply of electricity and other services to new industrial areas.
In response, the New Roads and Street Works Act was deliberately designed to improve the co-ordination of works by local authorities, because it was felt, quite

rightly, that they should be in the driving seat, if hon. Members will excuse the pun, of such development. They have an incentive to encourage undertakers to consider trenchless technology wherever possible. Specific statements to that effect appear in the 1991 Act's code of practice, in the context of traffic-sensitive streets where the avoidance of disruption is particularly relevant.
In 1989, the Transport Research Laboratory was commissioned to undertake a project on the use of trenchless technology, to indicate the extent to which it could be used to avoid road opening. The resultant report, "Trenchless Construction of Pipelines", was completed in 1993, but has not been published. It suggested that new technologies could considerably reduce the social cost of traffic delays.
My hon. Friend cited some spectacular figures, but I have no reason to disagree with his conclusions. The report's findings may supply key evidence for the use of the reserve powers in the 1991 Act or for an extension of that legislation, if that proves necessary, whereby undertakers can be charged for unduly prolonged occupation of road space.
My hon. Friend would be the first to accept that it would be difficult to require the use of a particular technology as the only one available, given the myriad number of applications under the 1991 Act. We must take account of the fact that it may be necessary on occasions to allow a different methodology. However, if the utilities are provided with a real incentive to complete work in a timely fashion and with minimum disruption—using the obvious technique of charging for unduly prolonged road occupation—that might provide a spur.
We have not yet gone that far, because there has been a considerable improvement in street works co-ordination since the introduction of the 1991 Act. When a new computerised system is implemented that will enable utilities to notify local authorities more quickly and accurately than at present—allowing them to exercise their co-ordinating role to the full—further benefits will derive from the 1991 Act.
Further support for the use of trenchless technology came from the Street Works Advisory Committee report that was submitted in July 1995. It contained the specific recommendations that highway authorities should encourage the use of trenchless technology where appropriate, and that the codes of practice published under the 1991 Act should adopt a more positive approach to technology progress. Those recommendations were accepted by the Government, so we will consider amending the codes to reinforce the value of trenchless technologies.
My hon. Friend's interest in the subject is no doubt stimulated, quite properly, by a company in his constituency, but I am grateful to him for drawing attention to the subject. There is tremendous scope for improving efficient completion of necessary works, which might bring benefits much more far-reaching than those enjoyed by utilities and local authorities.

Sitting suspended.

Driving Licences (Medical Conditions)

Mr. George Howarth: I should first like to express my gratitude for the opportunity to have this debate today. The Minister will be aware that, on 12 July 1994, I introduced the Unfitness to Drive on Medical Grounds Bill under the ten-minute rule. The purpose of the Bill was to place a statutory obligation on medical practitioners to report cases to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency when they considered a patient to be medically unfit to drive. As is usually the case with ten-minute Bills, mine did not receive a Second Reading.
My reasons for introducing the Bill arose from the tragic death of a young constituent, Paul Scarisbrick, in a road traffic accident on the M62 in Liverpool. The circumstances of Paul's death illustrate my argument. The accident occurred because a 73-year-old man, Mr. Abrams, who was suffering from Alzheimer's disease, took the wrong turn and ended up driving the wrong way along the M62. The outcome was that his vehicle collided with Paul's vehicle, and Paul was killed.
It emerged at the coroner's inquest that Mr. Abrams and members of his family had previously been advised by a consultant at Mossley Hill hospital that, given his condition, it was unsafe for him to continue driving. Unfortunately, that advice was ignored. Equally unfortunate was the fact that the medical practitioners concerned took the decision—the consequences of which were appallingly visited on Paul and his family—not to inform the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency of their concern.
It was the practitioners' view—it is a view held by many medical practitioners—that their greater responsibility was to preserve the doctor-patient confidentiality aspect of their relationship. It logically followed that public safety considerations were of subsidiary importance.
I received a letter from the corner who conducted the inquest—Mr. S. R. Barter MBE, a respected Liverpool district coroner—who said:
I am in no doubt in my own mind that the existing law should be changed by statute. Once a doctor has made a clinical judgment, following full investigation, that a patient is suffering from a disease which makes him a danger to himself and the public if he continues to drive, then he should be under a statutory obligation to inform the DVLA of his opinion.
That point of view should be taken heavily into account.
There have been further developments since I first raised the issue in the House two years ago. I have received a great deal of encouragement from members of the public and from a wide variety of organisations to continue pressing this issue, and I have been encouraged greatly by Mr. and Mrs. Scarisbrick, Paul's mother and father, to continue the campaign.
I received a letter from a person in Crewe. I do not have her permission to use her name, and so she shall remain anonymous. She said that she had heard about my Bill on BBC news, and went on to say:
My father suffered a stroke four years ago and lost the use of his left hand, and movement in his left leg was severely restricted. He applied to have to his licence renewed stating that he had been ill. A new licence was sent to him and no further checks were made. My father was 74 at that time and extremely anxious to drive. As he is a widower and I am the only child I felt responsible and

consequently wrote to DVLA to explain his condition, they then cancelled his licence that they had just issued. This action by me made the relationship between my father and I very awkward as he still thinks he would be all right to drive.
That letter is an example of the dilemma faced by family members who feel that an elderly parent who is in some way infirm should not be driving, and who take action. The decision clearly creates difficulties for their relationship with their parents or elderly relations.
On 29 July 1994 I received a letter from a solicitor, Mr. Bernie Rowe, of Lyons Davidson solicitors, in Bristol. He said:
My firm deals with several thousand road traffic accident claims each year, and each year produces its 'crop' of cases, nearly always involving relatively serious road accidents, where serious injury or death has resulted from drivers who have continued to drive despite health problems which would suggest they should not be behind the wheel.
As an immediate past chairman of the Motor Accident Solicitors Society, I know of many other solicitors throughout the country who will have a similar experience to my own. I had not been aware of your initiative on this matter until today, but as a result of reading the article in The Post, I have asked the Motor Accident Solicitors Society administrator to add to the next management committee's agenda details of your initiative.
He went on to mention my Bill, which he supported.
That is some of the evidence. I have files full of evidence, but selected only those two examples because I think that they make useful and significant points.
Some 12 months ago, with Mr. and Mrs. Scarisbrick, I met the Minister, who was kind enough to arrange a meeting in his office. We all felt that it was a constructive and useful meeting. I thank the Minister for the helpful and sympathetic approach he has taken to this case and to the issues that it raises.
The Minister's position then was that, while he sympathises with the aims of my Bill, he has been advised by the lawyers concerned that it would be difficult to introduce an acceptable procedure for policing statutory obligations on medical practitioners. I think that that is still his position.
In a letter to Mrs. and Mrs. Scarisbrick, dated 13 May 1996, the Minister said:
I would be sorry if you had the impression that progress had not been made in responding to the problem. When I wrote to George Howarth on 8 June, I included a copy of extracts from the document which the General Medical Council had recently agreed, advising doctors that they should be prepared to notify DVLA of cases of this sort, in certain specified conditions. This guidance has since been officially promulgated, publicised in national press and circulated to every doctor in the United Kingdom. Our Chief Medical Adviser has recently discussed the matter again with the GMC, and they will be undertaking some fresh publicity.
I am grateful for the action that has been taken.
So far, so good, but I remain unconvinced that those new arrangements, although very much an improvement over the previous system, provide any sanctions against medical practitioners who choose to ignore them, whether from misguided ethical considerations or from sheer negligence. Ideally, I should still like the arrangements to be put on a statutory basis. However, I realise that that is not a likely probability, at least in the short term.
I propose that the Minister enters into a consultation exercise with the General Medical Council, and with other interested parties, to discover whether it would be possible to develop a voluntary scheme that will be policed professionally rather than statutorily.
If the idea is to succeed, it must have three vital components. The first and most important criterion is that there must be a clear commitment to the reporting of such cases to the DVLA as a matter of routine, not as an exception. If a medical practitioner feels that somebody is unfit to drive, he must immediately report that fact to the DVLA. A separate set of procedures, which are extremely fair and do not make any prejudgments, is then pursued. The decision is subject to an independent medical examination.
Secondly, a clear sanction should be applied to medical practitioners who neglect to carry out that responsibility. If it could be made to work, I should have no objection if that were to be a professional sanction rather than a legal sanction under the criminal or civil law. If, when the Minister consults the General Medical Council, it can come up with such a way of dealing with the problem, I would be happy to see that go ahead, and to see whether it could be worked out without the need for statutory regulation.
Thirdly, Mr. Scarisbrick is keen, especially with progressive diseases such as Alzheimer's disease, that we should take into account the need for clear thought about how to determine at what point, in a general sense, a patient is liable to become unfit to drive for medical reasons. I know that that is a difficult concept to pinpoint, and that doctors are wary of applying generalised arguments to specific cases.
However, Mr. Scarisbrick has a point, because it is predictable that someone suffering from a degenerative disease is likely to become unfit to drive at some point. If the prospects cannot be easily determined, cases must be monitored and patients re-examined on a regular basis, to establish when they have reached the point at which they should no longer be driving.
Mr. Scarisbrick also asked me to raise four points, and I shall do so briefly. If the Minister wants to take more time to consider them, that is fine by me. I am sure that he will write either to me or to Mr. Scarisbrick about them. First, Mr. Scarisbrick feels that some progress has already been made, and he is grateful for that. Secondly, his main aim is to ensure that, once a person has been discovered to be suffering from an illness such as Alzheimer's disease, that person should not be allowed to drive. I covered that point in a slightly different way earlier.
Thirdly, Mr. Scarisbrick has noted that there are more and more reports of accidents involving older people, especially in cases involving motorway driving, in which the risks are often far greater—I believe that the Minister mentioned another such case in his letter of 13 May. Fourthly, Mr. Scarisbrick feels that, perhaps for a limited number of cases, there should be some process of medical certification when people apply for the renewal of insurance policies.
I know that the Minister is sympathetic, and equally that he is aware that, on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Scarisbrick, I have a fixed commitment to making further progress, so that the chances of another accident as horrific as that involving Paul are drastically reduced. I urge the hon. Gentleman to respond positively to my suggestion; if he wants to take it away and think about it, that is perfectly understandable. I believe that there is more progress to be made, so I hope that he will join me in that endeavour, so that we can try to reduce the possibility of any such thing ever happening again.

Mr. Edward O'Hara: I shall speak briefly in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth). I feel a strong sense of involvement with the case, for several reasons. First, the M62 motorway passes through my constituency at the point where the tragic accident happened. Secondly, although Mr. Scarisbrick and his family are now my hon. Friend's constituents, after the boundary changes they will become my constituents. Most importantly, their late son was a close friend of my children and their friends; they all went to school together, and I know how devastated that small community of decent young people was by the accident.
I endorse all that my hon. Friend has said, especially the three points that he raised at the end of his speech. People in my constituency, especially those closely involved with the tragic accident, cannot understand why the medical profession does not already have a statutory duty enforceable by sanctions. They certainly cannot understand why medical opinion cannot be brought closely to bear on the problem. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to what my hon. Friend has said.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Steve Norris): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) for raising this important subject. As he said, I met Mr. and Mrs. Scarisbrick when they came with him to see me last year, and we had a meeting at which useful progress was made. I welcome the further opportunity given by today's debate, because this is a problem to which at least part of the answer lies in publicity, whereby doctors and the public at large will become aware of the issues and be able to act more appropriately.
There are two things to say at the outset. First, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I very much sympathise with the Scarisbricks in the sad loss of their son in an accident caused by a driver suffering from Alzheimer's disease travelling in the wrong direction on a motorway. That is a dreadful human tragedy that no words of ours can mend. Secondly, we greatly appreciate the way in which the Scarisbricks have pressed us to take measures to reduce the likelihood that further blameless drivers will suffer in a similar way in future. If they feel that, in some way, some good may come out of the terrible tragedy that befell them, I entirely share that sentiment.
Let us examine the legal position and consider recent developments, and then I shall say a word about the hon. Gentleman's proposition about doctors being liable—a suggestion endorsed by the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara). All drivers are under a statutory obligation, when applying for a licence, to declare whether they are suffering from relevant or prospective disabilities. They must also notify the licensing authority if they subsequently become aware that they are suffering from such a disability.
The licensing authority has the power to refuse an application or revoke a licence, and can require a person to give consent to the provision of such medical reports as are necessary. Ultimately, it is the licensing authority's decision, not that of a patient's doctor, whether an


individual is fit to drive. Problems of the sort that we are talking about today arise when a driver is not aware of his incapacity and does not accept advice from his doctor, or indeed, from his family and friends, that he should notify the DVLA, but continues to drive.
Last year, the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention issued a revised guide entitled "Medical Aspects of Fitness to Drive", edited by the former chief medical adviser at the Department of Transport, Dr. John Taylor. That guide, which is available to all doctors, addresses those issues, and I have sent the hon. Member for Knowsley, North a copy.
It is important to underline the fact that, in his introduction, Dr. Taylor picks out for specific attention the problem that we are discussing, and refers to the unhappy case of Paul Scarisbrick. He advises doctors:
where a patient's disorder makes him manifestly dangerous as a driver and his condition renders him incapable of taking advice that he must inform DVLA, or where he refuses to do so, practitioners have a civil law duty to immediately inform DVLA medical staff.
That is a statement of the law as it stands today. The doctor is under a civil law duty to inform DVLA.
Confidentiality is a fundamental principle on which patient-doctor relationships rest, but the guide recognises that there are circumstances in which it is right that doctors should breach that confidentiality in the public interest if the result of not doing so would be to place someone else, or, indeed, patients themselves, at risk of serious harm or death. Such circumstances do not arise often, but cases involving patients with Alzheimer's disease might well be among them.
Since the issue of the guide, the General Medical Council has amplified its guidance to doctors, emphasising that, where patients continue to drive against advice when medically unfit to do so, doctors should pass information to medical advisers at DVLA without delay. The guidelines set out in some detail the steps that a doctor should take. Where the patient cannot understand the doctor's advice—for example, because of dementia—the doctor should inform DVLA immediately.
Where a patient understands the advice but refuses to accept it. doctors should suggest a second opinion, and if that does not do the trick, approach the patient's next of kin. If those efforts of persuasion fail, the doctor should pass the information in confidence to DVLA. Those guidelines, which were approved by the General Medical Council about a year ago, give doctors clear guidance on their responsibilities—both to their patients and the public at large—when faced with such circumstances, which are often very worrying.
The hon. Member for Knowsley, North made an extremely important point when he mentioned the family who were upset because they had to advise an elderly member of the family that he should not drive. There is no doubt that that is precisely the sort of circumstances in which relatives are extraordinarily diffident. Friends, too, are diffident about insisting that someone—perhaps with whom they live—should give up a facility from which they derive great practical benefit, which represents a final sign of aging or of suffering from a particular ailment that is unlikely to improve. That is a traumatic and difficult time.
There is clear advice from the GMC that, if relatives' efforts of persuasion and second opinions fail or advice is understood but simply not taken, the doctor personally

should pass the information in confidence to the DVLA. It has been put to me very clearly by a doctor with whom I recently discussed the matter that, bluntly, that is what doctors are there for. In such circumstances, they have to be clear where their duty lies.
The hon. Member for Knowsley, North has suggested—his private Member's Bill incorporated the suggestion—that there should be a specific statutory obligation on doctors to refer cases to the DVLA when they believe that a patient is unfit to drive, which would go beyond the principles that I have described and, in a sense, apply a sanction to a doctor who was deemed not to have made a suitable notification. I understand that there is such legislation in north America, but our research suggests that, in practice, it has not been effective. The reason is fairly straightforward.
It would certainly be very difficult to frame legislation that avoids a potential effect on the confidential doctor-patient relationship, but, more importantly, there is a risk that such a statutory provision would discourage patients from taking their problems to doctors. It is entirely predictable that patients whose condition varied would, if they did not feel particularly well on the day that they were due to be examined by their doctor, find some reason for cancelling the appointment and present themselves only when they felt that they were at their best. Doctors would rapidly develop a risk aversion, which would not be helpful either to them or to their patients.
I know of at least one case of a patient being examined by a doctor who came to the conclusion that, on balance, the patient ought to be allowed to drive. That patient subsequently caused a death due to dementia or psychosis that rendered him incapable of driving, yet the doctor had exercised his judgment and there was no suggestion that he did it with other than total responsibility and professionalism.
My Department and I have taken the view that, in such circumstances, it is intolerable to expose doctors to the risk of penalty or litigation when, in effect, the law is exercising that marvellous commodity known as 20:20 vision hindsight. On that basis, and bearing in mind the strong advice that I have described, we have so far remained unpersuaded that legislation such as that suggested by the hon. Members for Knowsley, North and for Knowsley, South is desirable.

Mr. George Howarth: The difficulty that I have with that concept is that, for whatever reason, some doctors will take what I consider a misguided ethical position on doctor-patient confidentiality. Although that is one problem, I must be honest and say that some doctors are so hard-pressed that they take the line of least resistance. There must be some compulsion on doctors in such circumstances so that they feel that, on balance, it is better to take the decision than, on balance, leave it on one side.

Mr. Norris: I entirely understand that point. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman and I are at odds on what we want the outcome to be. We want doctors clearly to understand their duty. The hon. Gentleman would introduce a legal constraint on them. I have said that, although I quite understand the merit of that argument, there would be a prospect of some serious disbenefit to doctors who are simply trying to do their best. As I have


said, there is very clear guidance, which, if I may paraphrase, says to doctors: "Be under no illusion. Your confidential relationship with your patient is extremely important but it cannot be more important than the life of an innocent bystander or another driver such as Paul Scarisbrick, or, indeed, patients themselves. In those circumstances, your duty, general practitioner, is entirely clear."
I will not, of course, close my mind or say that the Department's mind is closed on the matter, and I shall look at the idea of incorporating declarations on medical insurance forms, which may have some merit. Without any prejudice, I am happy that we should do so.
The main message should go out very clearly to doctors, and I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North for giving us the opportunity to send it. It is very simple: if in doubt about the ethics of disclosure, rather than whether the patient is fit to drive, be in no doubt. In fact, there is no doubt that there is a very distinct obligation to report. The judgment on suitability is of course a matter for doctors themselves.

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Manufacturing Industry

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to discuss developments in manufacturing industry at the next meeting he attends with his European Union counterparts. [32107]

The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian Lang): My colleagues and I meet regularly with our European Union counterparts to discuss a range of industrial issues. Later this afternoon I shall be meeting the Swedish Minister for Industry and Energy, Mr. Anders Sundstrôm.

Mr. Griffiths: I thank the President for that reply. Given that the occasional paper on United Kingdom investment performance shows that manufacturing investment is lower now than in 1979, and the latest output figures show that we are technically in recession, does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Chancellor that our poor manufacturing record could be made worse by the antics of the Tory Europhobes who, even now, could be scaring off inward investment?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman might need to be reminded that under this Government total investment has risen six times faster than under the Labour Government. Manufacturing investment in plant and machinery is up 12 per cent. since the beginning of the recovery and up 10 per cent. last year alone. The hon. Gentleman is painting a somewhat misleading picture. I am encouraged by that strength of investment, which will lead to greater output and better export figures in due course.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: When my right hon. Friend next meets his European counterparts, will he remind them that Britain is more competitive today than it has been for decades? Will he remind them that between a third and a quarter of all inward investment in the past 10 years has come to this country rather than to the rest of the European Union? Above all, will he remind them that whereas Britain is creating jobs—we have more people in work than ever before—the rest of Europe has 18 million unemployed and that figure is rising?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That inward investment is a measure of our increased competitiveness. As a result of our policies, overseas companies, many of them European, are flocking to the United Kingdom. When the Leader of the Opposition was in Germany yesterday, I wonder whether he reflected on the fact that, last year alone, 58 German companies decided to locate in Britain, fleeing from the sort of stakeholder economy with which Labour wants to saddle us.

Mrs. Beckett: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that investment in manufacturing is lower in real terms than when the Government came to power and that, far from what was just said by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown), in manufacturing output we are seventh out of 15 in the European Union? Will he

acknowledge that we are not even in the top three for unemployment, investment or inflation, and that we had the largest total trade deficit in Europe in 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 and almost certainly in 1995? Is it not the case that, far from being the enterprise centre of Europe, under this Government Britain has slipped from 13th to 18th place in the world prosperity league?

Mr. Lang: The right hon. Lady is talking nonsense and giving a totally misleading picture. She seems to have forgotten that since 1980 the United Kingdom has had the fastest growth in gross domestic product—equal with Germany—the fastest growth in productivity bar none, the fastest growth in manufacturing output, the fastest growth in investment, the fastest growth in private consumption and the lowest tax burden. The right hon. Lady should give a fairer and more accurate picture of what is going on in this country.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the President of the Board of Trade agree that sometimes the opposition to investment in the United Kingdom comes from some short-sighted British firms who object, for example, to the Europe Tool Company from South Korea investing in Northern Ireland? Some of those firms are actually purchasing tool components from Korea that could be manufactured in the United Kingdom by British industry.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the economy of Northern Ireland has benefited enormously from inward investment into this country. I believe that most of those decisions are taken for long-term reasons, because countries throughout the world can identify the improvement in productivity and competitiveness in this country, and therefore in their manufacturing plans for the global market they regard the United Kingdom—including Northern Ireland, obviously—as the best base for exporting into the European market and beyond. The dramatic success that the United Kingdom has had in attracting inward investment is a tribute to the progress that has been made under the present Government.

Mining Industry

Mr. Skinner: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next expects to meet those in the mining industry responsible for (a) production and (b) health and safety. [32108]

The Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): My ministerial colleagues and I meet representatives of the coal mining industry as appropriate.

Mr. Skinner: When the Minister next meets Richard Budge, who since privatisation is the principal owner of most of the mines in Great Britain, will he tell him that it is pretty clear to most people in the mining industry that Mr. Budge is cutting corners on safety in order to make massive profits to the tune of £173 million in the first year of privatisation and to line his own pockets to the tune of £661,000? Is the Minister aware that accident rates have increased by more than 50 per cent. and falls of ground by more than 80 per cent.?
Will the Minister order Richard Budge to ensure that, as in the old days, the National Union of Mineworkers and other trade unions will have the right to meet at properly


instituted safety committees? If Mr. Budge will not allow that to take place, independent inquiry should be set up into the escalating accident rates in underground mining.

Mr. Eggar: When I next meet Mr. Budge, I shall congratulate him on the fact that, in 1995, deep-mine production has increased by 10 per cent. on that of 1994. I shall congratulate him on the fact that, despite the best efforts of Mr. Scargill and his cronies, including the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), there were no strikes in the coal mining industry last year, for the first time since records began.
On safety, I shall not hesitate to point out to Mr. Budge that, sadly, the record in the last nine months of 1995 was as high as 8.18 accidents per 100,000 man shifts. I shall also point out to him, however, that that compares extremely favourably with the accident rate in 1979, which was almost 12 times higher, at 94.6 accidents per 100,000 man shifts. I might also ask him to suggest that the hon. Member for Bolsover apologises to the House and to the miners of this country for so misconstruing the position.

Mr. Luff: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what he has just said could be summed up as "Britain is producing more coal more safely"? Is that not a direct tribute to the wise policies of privatisation that he has personally pursued so energetically in the House? How would that compare with the continued policy of nationalisation so slavishly advocated by the doctrinaire and dogmatic members of so-called new Labour?

Mr. Eggar: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Back in 1994, the hon. Member for Bolsover said that he wanted renationalisation of the coal industry without compensation and the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, said:
I would be astonished if our plans to rescue the coal industry after the next election did not involve public ownership."—[Official Report, 23 March 1994; Vol. 240, c. 313.]
I notice that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) has been completely silent on that issue.

Electricity and Water Companies

Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received regarding the ownership of the electricity and water companies. [32109]

Mr. Eggar: My Department has received, and continues to receive, various representations about the ownership of electricity and water companies.

Mr. Prentice: Does the Minister agree with his friend and colleague the prince across the water, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who believes that electricity and water do not mix and, indeed, said as much in The Times on 1 June? Does the Minister further agree with his colleague that British utilities are becoming the adventure playground of corporate capital, that the Government are paralysed by indecision, that there is no clear policy framework and that the Minister is responsible for chaos and confusion throughout that vital part of British industry?

Mr. Eggar: I always give the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) the attention that they deserve.

Mr. John Marshall: May I ask my right hon. Friend not to pay too much attention to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), who was such a disaster when he led Hammersmith council? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, since the water industry entered the private sector, there has been a massive increase in investment, which has led to better quality water supplies?

Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is also fair to point out the significant real fall in electricity prices for domestic and industrial consumers.

Mr. Battle: In the face of the ad hoc restructuring of the United Kingdom electricity industry, with its daily bids and takeovers, is not the Government's confused for-and-against response simply generating more chaos? On the same day as the Secretary of State overruled the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and blocked PowerGen and National Power's takeover bids, he allowed Eastern to buy some of the generators and form the sort of vertically integrated company to which he says that he is opposed. Will the Minister confirm, as is well known, that he was opposed to that decision by the Secretary of State?
Why is there still no sign of a clear Government strategy or direction? While the mania for bids and takeovers means quick cash for speculators and directors, customers are increasingly becoming a mere afterthought as a result of the Government's approach.

Mr. Eggar: Typical customers are benefiting from a reduction in their electricity bills, this year and next, of about £90. That is a clear benefit of privatisation, and there are many others associated with it: improving standards of service in the electricity sector, and doubled investment in the water sector following the massive under-investment under the Labour party in the mid-1970s.

Mr. Congdon: Is not the most significant aspect of the ownership of those industries the fact that they have been transferred from the dead hand of state ownership to the dynamic private sector? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proof of the pudding is in the fact that the old nationalised industries cost the state £50 million a week but now benefit the state to the tune of £55 million a week?

Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Council of Ministers (United Kingdom Veto)

Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those European Union agreements relevant to UK industry that have been delayed as a consequence of the Government's decision of 21 May to use the UK veto at the Council of Ministers. [32110]

Mr. Lang: The principal measures relevant to industry where Ministers have withheld agreement following the Prime Minister's announcement on 21 May—[Interruption.]—concern legislative simplification and administrative co-operation, accounting standards [Interruption.]—an action programme for EU industry and certain agreements concerning trade relations with third countries.

Mr. Marshall: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. There is too much talking going on. I want to hear the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Marshall: I know that you, Madam Speaker, could not hear the Secretary of State's response any more than I could, so I shall have to pretend that I did.

Madam Speaker: Indeed, I could not hear it either.

Mr. Marshall: When will the President and his fellow Cabinet members realise that the Government's position on Europe, far from progressing a solution to the beef crisis, is hindering a solution to it and harming Britain's competitive position? Will the right hon. Gentleman estimate the cost to British industry of the blanket veto that this country is currently exercising on EU business?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman may have his own opinions about the effect of the veto, but the Government took the view that it was necessary to bring to the attention of our partners in Europe the great importance that we attach to a solution to this problem, and the need to have in place a framework for lifting the ban, which was not scientifically justified and was imposed without being backed up by scientific evidence. The cost will be very low indeed if the ban is lifted soon and we can resume business as normal, but the cost to British industry if the ban remains in place will be considerable.

Sir John Cope: Before anyone gets too worked up about the backlog of EU business, will my right hon. Friend confirm that, the moment agreement is reached on beef, all outstanding matters can be quickly put through any available ministerial Council in 24 hours, as what is known in the jargon as an "A point"? What matters is reaching an agreement on beef. The veto has simply put beef back at the top of the European Community agenda, which is where it should be.

Mr. Lang: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: once the matter is resolved, the United Kingdom will be as keen as any other participant in the European Union to make speedy progress on the other matters that are being held up.

Dr. Howells: Will the President of the Board of Trade say whether he will be attending the Council of Ministers a week from tomorrow to reverse the Government's previous policy on the Post Office? Will he be casting his vote behind the Commission's proposals to liberalise direct mail services and thus threaten the future of the Royal Mail by sneaking through, by qualified majority voting, a privatisation measure that the House rejected last time it was debated?

Mr. Lang: The Labour party seems to be in a muddle about its policies on competition and on the Post Office. No, I will not be at the Council myself.

Mr. Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that a significant section of British industry is represented by companies such as Anglo-Dutch Meats in my constituency, where some 350 jobs are under threat as a result of the wholly unlawful worldwide ban imposed by the European Union? Does he agree with me and with many of my constituents that until our European partners choose to approach this matter on the basis of science and not from political or commercial considerations, the British Government should continue to use their veto wherever they think appropriate?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right, and he emphasises the importance of having the matter resolved quickly. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear precisely when and where our veto will be exercised. We hope that the matter will be resolved soon, that a framework will be in place for the lifting of the ban, and that business will return to normal.

Industrial Development (Maryport)

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next intends to visit Maryport to discuss matters relating to industrial development. [32111]

The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John M. Taylor): Although I have no immediate plans to visit Maryport, I have made regular visits to the north-west since becoming a DTI Minister and I am well aware of the issues in Maryport.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister ask the Secretary of State, who is sitting next to him, whether he is prepared to call in on Maryport, which is in my constituency, in the next few weeks on his way home to his own constituency in the Borders? The visit would give him the opportunity to discuss with Maryport town councillors the escalating difficulties of the town. It would also give him the opportunity to explain why we cannot have back the development area status that we lost some years ago, a loss which is now costing us dearly.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman can take some comfort from the fact that unemployment in his constituency is now falling by 8 per cent. He will remember debating these issues with me in an Adjournment debate on 4 March. I remind him that Maryport is an assisted area, and any investment proposals that create or safeguard jobs will be considered for support. West Cumbria is also an objective 2 area and eligible for European funding for business support measures, training and reskilling.

European Regional Development Fund

Sir David Knox: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the value of grants allocated to England from the European regional development fund since its inception. [32113]

Mr. Eggar: It is £7.1 billion in 1996 prices.

Sir David Knox: That is a significant figure. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the grants are playing an important part in strengthening the British economy? Does he believe that the British people are aware of the nature and scope of these grants? If not, what is he doing to publicise them?

Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the grants are an important part of assistance to the appropriate regions. As my hon. Friend knows, his constituency is in the midlands uplands area, which is eligible for objective 5b assistance and it received a programme allocation of £10 million. Assistance through the regional assistance programmes of the European Union is an important contribution to the successful economic growth not only of this country but of the European Union as a whole. This is just another example of the tremendous benefits that we gain from being part of the European Union. It is assisting us to establish ourselves as the enterprise centre of Europe.

Mr. Pearson: Does the Minister believe that the shambles of the current European regional development fund round is due to non-co-operation among Brussels officials, incompetence in Government regional offices, or both?

Mr. Eggar: There have been delays in taking decisions about a number of structural funds and much of the responsibility for that lies with Brussels. Government officers and I have been trying to speed up the decision making on those grants. Above all, we must ensure that we get good value for the money that is disbursed. That is why we introduced the regional challenge programme and why the private sector is able to benefit from European regional development funding. That decision has provided a further £800 million in joint funding. We must continue to improve the speed of disbursement and the quality of disbursement decisions.

Innovative Technology

Mr. Flynn: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what new proposals he has to improve innovative technology in industry. [32114]

The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): The information society initiative, the crusade for biotechnology and the LINK programme are key departmental initiatives. Business links is appointing innovation and technology counsellors.

Mr. Flynn: Is not a principal reason why Britain has slumped from 13th to 18th in the world prosperity league table the fact that the average British company spends twice as much on dividends as it spends on research and development, while the top 200 companies spend three times as much on research as they spend on dividends? As the tiny country of Taiwan registers more patents than Britain and a single Japanese company registers more patents than all of British industry, are we not doomed to slump even further in the world prosperity league as we become a nation of branch factories for innovative, successful Pacific rim companies?

Mr. Taylor: The Government's policies have encouraged greater business expenditure on research and development in the past few years. However, I do not disguise the fact that I would like to see even more investment in that area. I am concerned about the level of investment in research and development among British companies, which do not compare well—I exempt the pharmaceutical industry, of course—with world-class companies. The hon. Gentleman should remember that a patent alone is not a guarantee of success: it is the exploitation of ideas that is important. There is a considerable movement in British industry and in the science base to try to ensure that we exploit ideas that are generated in both industrial and university laboratories.

Mr. Fabricant: In contrast with the negative comments of the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), is it not a fact that the crusade for biotechnology has encouraged major British firms to experiment and to develop products in that area? Is not the largest pharmaceutical company in the world a British company and based in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right. The crusade for biotechnology, which was launched by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and me yesterday, is a remarkable effort across Government Departments to highlight the importance of that sector to the United Kingdom. There are several measures which show our determination to support new British companies that are emerging in the biotechnology area, to support the science base, and to encourage the spin-out of ideas and the protection of intellectual property. The move was warmly welcomed by a number of leading biotechnologists from large and small companies and also by leading academics.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: If we exclude the pharmaceutical and chemical industries, does the Minister agree that there has been an 11 per cent. fall in manufacturing investment in research and development since 1986? Is he considering the request from the Select Committee on Science and Technology that the Government review fiscal incentives for research and development so as to improve our appalling performance?

Mr. Taylor: Fiscal incentives as such are a matter for the Treasury. We always keep under review what is occurring in other countries. The most interesting point about the fiscal base in this country is that it is often cited as a factor by companies wishing to invest here. I welcome the increasing number of research and development projects that are coming to this country as a result of the Government's overall economic management. That is a key factor and, allied to our excellent science base, I am sure that the hon. Lady will join me in welcoming the increase in research and development which is often encouraged by overseas investors in this country.

Balance of Trade

Mr. Pawsey: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the United Kingdom's trade balance with EU countries in the last quarter for which figures are available. [32115]

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Anthony Nelson): During the first quarter of 1996 the United Kingdom had a deficit in trade in goods of £994 million with EU countries.

Mr. Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. What action does he believe British industrialists could take to improve the level of exports to the Community? Does he agree that the Community is either a common market or nothing, and that there is no need for us to go deeper into a political union with Europe with a common currency and funding common defence and foreign policies?

Mr. Nelson: We still have a long way to go to take full advantage of the single market, which we pioneered and which we still have an obligation to see through. Undoubtedly, however, our exports have seen exponential growth there, characterised by a large number of small to medium-sized companies that employ many people. Exports are not important in themselves, but in the employment to which they give rise. The Government's policies of low inflation, low taxation, low interest rates and low non-wage costs—all distinctively British and Conservative—have resulted in high exports and substantial growth of small to medium-sized businesses in Europe. We should welcome all that.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Why is the Minister being so modest when the President of the Board of Trade revealed on 20 February that Britain has the worst deficit in the European Union apart from Greece, whose most memorable export achievements are the Elgin marbles and Nana Mouskouri? When Italy, Germany and five other neighbours have trade surpluses and we have a deficit, is it any wonder that the Conservatives have relegated this country in 18 years to 18th place in the world prosperity league?

Mr. Nelson: I thought for one shocking moment that the hon. Gentleman was about to break ranks by not asking a dismal and despondent question putting Britain down, but of course he fell into line. The truth is rather different.

Mr. Griffiths: Explain the decline since 1979.

Mr. Nelson: I will. Many of the figures that are given for deficits relate to trade in goods and do not necessarily take account of trade in services, and we are one of the few countries in Europe that has a surplus on that account. We have seen tremendous growth, which we should all welcome, in our exports to Europe, characterised by manufacturing exports. The picture is much brighter and the hon. Gentleman does his party and the country no service by trying to paint it otherwise.

Lady Olga Maitland: Will my hon. Friend confirm that Britain exports more per head than the USA, Japan and our main European competitors? Does he agree that that is because this country is unfettered by the social chapter and the minimum wage?

Mr. Nelson: My hon. Friend is right. This country has an outstanding record on exports, not only in absolute but in comparative terms. Much of that record derives from

the fact that we have not imported high wage costs and non-wage costs from the European Union in the social contract. We must ensure that the difference between the parties on that issue is brought into sharp relief for the country and the electorate, because it is a key component of job creation and exports for this country.

University Research Equipment

Mr. Robert Hughes: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the equipment needs of UK universities for research purposes. [32117]

Mr. Jon Taylor: Research equipment and other needs of the science budget are assessed with advice from the Director General of Research Councils. The research councils are currently administering an equipment fund with the higher education funding councils.

Mr. Hughes: Has the Minister seen the recent survey, commissioned by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals with the higher education funding councils of England, Scotland and Wales, which concludes that four out of five university departments are unable to conduct critical experiments due to lack of funding? The survey also points out that the situation has deteriorated since the previous survey in 1987. In view of those facts, will the Minister abandon the folly of cutting university funding by half over the next three years and instead re-inject capital funding, as has been requested by the academic, business and industrial communities?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is selective in his quotation from the report. It also shows that 80 per cent. of universities consider that their equipment is better or at least adequate. That is an important factor. More than 52 per cent. consider that their equipment matches well with that of their international competition. The report is complex, not least because 91 universities responded, not all of which we would regard as being at the forefront of research. The figures must be examined closely.
We recognise, however, that universities have equipment problems which have an effect on research. That is why the Department of Trade and Industry, through the research councils, is administering a joint equipment budget, and why I have asked my officials to discuss with the vice-chancellors ways in which we can solve long-term problems, including a better way to allocate equipment between universities, a second-hand market and attempts to obtain bulk purchases. More details will be revealed when I am satisfied that we have got to the bottom of the problem.

Mr. Ingram: I do not think that that answer will satisfy anyone who is interested in our science and research base, least of all the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the higher education funding councils. Is the Minister prepared to accept that their assessment, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) referred, points out that there is a crisis in our science base and that cuts in research funding and equipment have seriously damaged our international competitiveness? If he is not prepared to accept that, I accuse him of indifference to what is happening to our


science and research base. If he accepts the finding, it is not long-term solutions that are needed but immediate and quick ones to recover what has been lost.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman should read the reports with a good deal more consideration. It is a simple fact that 25 of our universities receive 70 per cent. of the total equipment budget. That means that they are the excellent universities in categories 4 and 5 in the research assessment exercise. We are keeping a close check to ensure that our research is up to standard and of the quality required.
There are many complicated factors. If we analyse the reports, we find that about 147 magnetic spectrometers are required by universities throughout the country. There has been no discussion to ascertain whether they are all required, whether there should be bulk purchase, or whatever. Surely the hon. Gentleman agrees that, in those circumstances, a more rational approach to the long-term problem of funding equipment in our universities is required, which is precisely what I have already worked on with my officials. Indeed, I have talked to Professor Gareth Roberts, the vice-chancellor of Sheffield university.

Pyramid Selling

Mr. Rendel: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to make the regulations covering pyramid selling more restrictive. [32118]

Mr. John M. Taylor: The Government fully support the provisions of the Trading Schemes Bill, which has just had its Second Reading in another place. The Bill will extend the application of existing controls on pyramid selling to money circulation schemes. As and when it becomes law, we will introduce revised regulations.

Mr. Rendel: Does the Minister agree with me in welcoming the proposed changes and agree further that anyone who becomes involved in such a money-changing scheme is ill advised? Does he agree also that the public would be well advised to avoid such schemes like the plague?

Mr. Taylor: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I remind him of what Sir Richard Scott said in the High Court about a recent case, and one that the hon. Gentleman knows about. He said that it was
highly unsatisfactory, highly suspicious and thoroughly undesirable".
The hon. Gentleman is right to warn his constituents, and
I mine.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The Minister will be aware that in some instances 400 or 500 people at a time are being enticed into crazy schemes that require them to put up large sums with no visible return of any sort. Will he therefore make his views public so that people throughout the country are aware that the schemes are a straightforward scam? As soon as the law becomes operational, I hope that many people will find themselves in the courts.

Mr. Taylor: I accept the hon. Lady's sentiments entirely. My most immediate opportunity to make my views public is now. I remind the House that, in the past

24 months, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made 13 applications to wind up companies promoting money-making pyramids. There are other applications in the pipeline. The applications have led to 12 orders to wind up. One case is pending.

British Energy

Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the sale of British Energy. [32119]

Mr. Lang: Good progress continues to me made on the sale of British Energy. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy announced last week, the final date for registration is 24 June and the UK public offer opens on 26 June.

Mr. Smith: The Minister for Industry and Energy recently dismissed the independent report produced by Dr. Sadniki on the liabilities associated with the sale of the nuclear power industry as absolute garbage. As the Minister failed to justify that assertion in yesterday evening's debate, would the President of the Board of Trade attempt to do so today?

Mr. Lang: The report is so full of misconceptions and inaccuracies that it would be impossible to do so in an answer to an oral question. There are a number of misconceptions and the figures do not relate the accurate position. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the prospectus.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the success of the nuclear industry in being able, in effect, to return most of the non-fossil fuel levy to consumers means that people's bills will rapidly become smaller? Is it not a complete con on the public for Opposition Members to suggest that they could raise £3 billion out of utilities such as electricity without once more increasing energy prices?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The fall in the levy from 10 to 3.7 per cent. will be worth about £15 to £20 off the average household bill. He is also right to draw attention to the wide difference in approach between the two parties. Our view is that the benefits that come from privatisation should continue to go to the consumer, as they are doing; whereas the Labour party wants to impose windfall taxes, which would penalise consumers, impose a new tax burden and strongly discourage precisely the competitive approach that is so improving the service of utilities in this country.

Manufacturing Output

Mr. Olner: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the output of manufactured goods in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries (i) in 1979 and (ii) at present [32120]

The Parliamentary Under—Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Phillip Oppenheim): Since 1979, the share of manufacturing in total output has fallen by a quarter in both the OECD as a whole and the United Kingdom.

Mr. Olner: The Under-Secretary has obviously put the best spin he possibly can on those figures. Will he confirm that, since 1979, 2.76 million jobs have been lost in manufacturing industry, and during that period this country slipped from 13th to 18th place in the world prosperity league?

Mr. Oppenheim: In the unlikely event that the hon. Gentleman finds himself standing in the position I am in now, I suspect that he would also try to put a good spin on whatever figures are fed to him. I suspected that he might quote the Institute of Management Development report rather than the World Economic Forum report, which showed Britain's position rising from 18th to 15th place. In a totally non-partisan spirit, however, I am happy to stick to the IMD report that he quoted and point out that the countries that it shows have made the most improvement over the past decade are Hong Kong—the free market capital of Asia—and Chile and New Zealand, which perhaps have made even more progress over the past decade than this country in deregulating and opening markets. That is hardly an endorsement of Labour policies, whatever they may be today.

Mr. Gallie: Does my hon. Friend agree that the aerostructure industry plays an important part in our manufacturing output? On that basis, does he agree that overseas success is dependent on a strong home base? Will he make representations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to ensure that, when the Nimrod replacement or refurbishment programme is determined, British Aerospace at Prestwick gets a fair look in?

Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend is, as ever, a good advocate for his own constituency. He is right to point out that two high-tech industries that have done well in Britain over the past 17 years are pharmaceuticals and aerospace. Close to my own constituency is Rolls-Royce plc, which was almost written off as a basket case in the 1970s but which has since trebled its share of commercial aero-engines and is now a successful, profitable company.

Mr. Hoon: Does the Minister agree that, notwithstanding the Government's extravagant claims about the current state of the British economy, the 0.3 per cent. decline in manufacturing output in April compared to March and the fall in manufacturing output in each of the previous two quarters means that the British economy is in recession?

Mr. Oppenheim: No, I do not agree, not surprisingly. I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that, in the past quarter, manufacturing in Britain rose at a time when it is stagnant or falling in the rest of Europe. I ask him, because I know that he has an expansive mind, to look at the big picture. During the 1980s and 1990s, Britain's manufacturing productivity growth was the fastest of all the major economies in the world. Our manufacturing output has grown faster than that in all the other major

European Union countries. I also remind him that, when his party was last in power, our manufacturing productivity growth was bottom of the league of major nations and our manufacturing productivity output actually fell.

Sir Michael Grylls: Does my hon. Friend agree that the biggest contribution that any Government can make to help manufacturing industry is to maintain a stable economic climate and, above all, keep inflation down? The Government have been very successful at that. I really wonder how the Opposition, with their appalling record on inflation, which destroyed jobs in manufacturing industry, have the impertinence even to question this.

Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend is right. Not only was the record of the great macho men of manufacturing on the Opposition Benches one of falling manufacturing output and stagnant bottom-of-the-league manufacturing productivity, but hundreds of thousands of jobs in manufacturing were lost every year under the previous Labour Government. Perhaps that is why the report that the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) quoted showed Britain's competitiveness above that of France and Italy, while the World Economic Forum report showed it above that of Germany as well.

Manufacturing Trade

Mr. Canavan: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the balance of trade in manufactured goods in the latest quarter. [32121]

Mr. Nelson: There was a deficit of £2.5 billion on trade in manufactured goods in the first quarter of 1996.

Mr. Canavan: Is the Minister aware that the United Kingdom's trade balance in manufactured goods went into deficit in 1983 for the first time since the industrial revolution, and has remained in deficit ever since? Given that this country has a worse trade balance than any other European Union member state, how on earth can the Government claim that they are making Britain into the enterprise centre of Europe? The truth is that the President of the Board of Trade is the captain of a team that is at the bottom of the European league.

Mr. Nelson: That is another extremely depressing analysis, completely unrelated to the facts. Since the Conservative party came to office, the number of manufacturing exports has doubled. Moreover, the hon. Gentleman referred only to manufacturing exports. We have a £5.5 billion surplus on our services account.
It is necessary to look at the whole picture. Like so many of his hon. Friends, the hon. Gentleman is highly selective and extremely deprecating about our trade performance. Much is going well. He would do better to concentrate on success stories such as that of Exabyte in his constituency, which has created 200 jobs—and what about Walter Alexander, also in his constituency, which has sent £20 million-worth of exports to the far east and created another 200 jobs? Those are good jobs, created by the policies of a Conservative Government.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Talking of competitiveness, is my hon. Friend aware of the revised World Economic Forum global competitiveness league? The United Kingdom has moved up in that league: we are now No. 3 in Europe, at 15th place, while France and Germany have been relegated to 22nd and 23rd. That suggests that we are indeed becoming the enterprise centre of Europe.

Mr. Nelson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting the record straight. He is right to point out that our trade and export performance has been moving up the league in both absolute and relative terms. All that reflects the implementation of Conservative policies in practice and in government. Those are the policies that will create lasting jobs in this country.

Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister speaking, or even perhaps listening, to the Confederation of British Industry and our leading exporters, all of whom are saying—certainly to Opposition Members—that they are very concerned about the Government's policy on Europe? The current activities and divisions in regard to interference with decisions by the European Commission lead them to fear that the Government's commitment in their major trading area is weakening. Do not the CBI and our global performance—based here, but global—need the assurance of a strong commitment to Europe that they are not gaining from a party that is riven by divisions on where it is going in Europe?

Mr. Nelson: Of course I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's conclusion. Conservative Members assert that there is no incompatibility between fighting our corner hard in Europe and being strongly in favour of the ambitions and objectives of the economy that Europe can create by acting in concert. This party in government will always stand up for our interests, but it will always play its part in Europe. The hon. Gentleman, the CBI and everyone else should be left in no doubt about that.

Mr. Forman: Can my hon. Friend confirm that our balance of trade in manufactured goods in some of the fastest-growing markets in the global economy is healthy and improving? Are there not encouraging examples in, for instance, our trade with parts of Asia and the Pacific rim?

Mr. Nelson: There are indeed. I pick out countries such as Indonesia and India—[Interruption.] Even if we do not take into account some of the military equipment to which Opposition Members have referred from a sedentary position, our exports in key sectors such as power generation, construction and water infrastructure have been outstanding. They are in surplus, and there is every prospect of their increasing further.

Computer Equipment (Libya)

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the conviction of McNeill International in the USA on a charge of exporting educational computer equipment to Libya. [32124]

Mr. Oppenheim: No.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the Minister recollect that, shortly after leaving the Department, the right hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Needham) made a characteristically candid statement, expressing his exasperation with the Foreign Office for having put spokes in the wheel of trade in vehicles between Bedfordshire and Libya? Are we quite sure that we are not once again being taken for a commercial ride by the Americans? Libya is our traditional market; the decision makers were trained in Britain and not in the United States.
Will the Minister look carefully at this case, because some of us think that the Americans have quite cynically scapegoated Libya, that the Libyans were not responsible for Lockerbie, that it is doubtful that they were responsible for the murder of Yvonne Fletcher, and that it is doubtful that they were responsible for the La Belle discotheque incident, which caused the bombing?

Mr. Oppenheim: I always genuinely listen to the hon. Gentleman carefully, but it strikes me as odd that he and some of his colleagues always kick up a fuss—sometimes understandably—about equipment exports from Britain to other regimes that they find distasteful, such as Burma, yet want us to export to the more distasteful, authoritarian and, in many ways, vicious regime of Libya. It was not British goods being exported to Libya and stopped but American goods, which the Americans stopped a British exporter indirectly exporting to Libya via a third country. The Americans have their own rules on exports to Libya, and in this instance they asked for our assistance in helping to prevent their laws from being broken on their soil. We gave that assistance and would expect it to be reciprocated if the situation were the other way around.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware that McNeill International could be prosecuted for exporting radiographic equipment to Libya? Libya is about the only country in the world that is denied treatment for cancer simply because of what seems to be a rather mad policy. In view of that and of the fact that, on 26 May, a citizen of Lebanon was arrested, extradited and brought to trial in Germany for the Berlin bombing, which we and the Americans used as the excuse for bombing Libya, might there be a case for reviewing a silly, cruel and heartless policy?

Mr. Oppenheim: I cannot comment on the individual case, unless my hon. Friend gives me the details, but we have a policy of strictly adhering to United Nations sanctions on exports to Libya. The Americans have their own rules, which go further. If the Americans decide that they do not want to export certain goods to Libya, that is their business. Where it becomes our business is if they try to claim extra-territorial rights, by claiming that they have some say beyond the UN sanctions over what we or other countries export to Libya or other countries.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. There is a lot more to this, and I hope to raise it on the Adjournment.

Deregulation

Dr. Spink: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the impact of deregulation on inward investment. [32125]

Mr. Oppenheim: Our deregulated business environment is recognised as one of our key strengths by inward investors. It is one of the many contributory factors that have made the United Kingdom the No. 1 location for inward investment into Europe.

Dr. Spink: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if this or any Government followed the European model or, indeed, the socialist model on regulation and interference, inward investment would fall?

Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend is right, and I will give him one good example of where our policies of deregulation and open markets have led to more inward investment. We were leaders in deregulating and privatising telecommunications. We were opposed at every step in liberalising telecommunications by scare stories that were published and peddled by Opposition Members. We were told that telecom engineers would be electrocuted up telegraph poles, that little old ladies in remote communities would be cut off and that telephone boxes would disappear from high streets. We have seen instead the most rapid improvement in telecommunication services coupled with falling prices and an increased number of telephone boxes of any major industrial country, which has helped to attract business to Britain and jobs for British people.

Mr. Purchase: Will the Minister admit that about one quarter of all inward investment has been for the purpose of purchasing British companies, and that the cumulative total of capital exported from this country on the same basis is far in excess of the sum invested in Britain? Does that not show that Britain's so-called deregulated economy is less attractive to investors than so-called regulated economies elsewhere?

Mr. Oppenheim: Either the hon. Gentleman is one of the new Labourites who believe in the open market or he is not. If he does believe, as his party apparently does, he should accept two-way investment flows. The Germans, who have a more regulated market than ours, invest more in Britain than we do in their country. Conversely, we export more to France than the French invest in Britain. That is the nature of a modern global economy. Perhaps the Germans know something that the French do not.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: As Britain attracts more than 40 per cent. of US and Japanese investment in Europe, does my hon. Friend agree that that might have more to do with an observation made last week by George Simpson, chief executive of Lucas Industries, who is to be the new chairman of GEC? He commented that, in 30 years in business, he could not remember a time when economic policy was managed in such a way as to produce a better competitive environment for British industry.

Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That state of affairs is in stark contrast to the position that we inherited. I remember a trade union leader saying that he would only buy a Ford car made at one of the company's German plants. In the 1970s, General Motors and Ford were falling over themselves to push investment out of Britain and did not export any cars from this country. Today, GM, Ford and the Japanese companies

Nissan, Toyota and Honda are exporting vast numbers of cars from Britain. Even Rover, which manufactured international jokes such as the Allegro and the Marina when Labour was in power, is successfully exporting no less than half its output.

Electricity and Water Companies

Mr. Chisholm: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received regarding the ownership of the electricity and water companies. [32126]

Mr. Eggar: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice).

Mr. Chisholm: The Minister made no attempt to answer earlier questions on the subject—perhaps because of his disagreements with the President of the Board of Trade. Will the hon. Gentleman lay down even one principle in place of the confusion and chaos that currently typify Government policy? Will he acknowledge that consumer interests should take precedence over takeover and dividend mania? Will he be more ready in future to refer bids to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?

Mr. Eggar: I agree with the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), who is all in favour of competition. I detect from the questions of the hon. Members for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) and for Pendle that they do not entirely agree with the hon. Member for East Kilbride.

Research and Development

Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Government's policies in encouraging British businesses to increase their investment in research and development. [32127]

Mr. Ian Taylor: Evaluations of past research and development support show that it enhanced the amount and scope of the R and D undertaken and enabled firms to complete projects earlier. Support for collaborative R and D has improved interaction between industry and the science base. The recent "forward look" publication shows business expenditure on research and development is increasing in real terms.

Dr. Jones: If Britain is to become the enterprise centre of Europe, does the Minister agree that it must improve its performance in research and development—which, with the honourable exceptions mentioned earlier, lags way behind that of more successful economies? Last week's White Paper showed that, while dividend pay-outs have inexorably risen, investment in R and D is not even back to the pre-recession level. Will the Government stop dismissing the importance of fiscal incentives to encourage profit retention for investment over dividend pay-outs?

Mr. Taylor: The trouble with the Labour party is that it is increasingly giving the impression that it opposes dividends, which shows a fundamental lack of


understanding of how financial systems work in this country. Dividends are a vital part of growth in the value of pensions. However, I accept—as I have done earlier today—that British companies should pay more attention to the percentage of their sales spent on research and development. That is a matter of considerable importance, and I shall say more about it when the latest research and development scoreboard from the DTI is published next week.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that response, in which he implied that we are not investing enough in research and development—as we are not investing enough in industry generally. Will my hon. Friend make further proposals to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the Treasury to enhance investment, not least in research and development, using fiscal measures that encourage success?

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend, who is a great champion of manufacturing industry, knows that investment plans in industry are best prepared against a background of low inflation, low interest rates and stable economic management. We are delivering those things, which is why we are increasingly receiving the enthusiastic support of inward investors and of UK industry. However, I am always on the lookout for measures that might stimulate research and development.
I repeat that there is absolutely no way in which British companies will be able to compete into the next millennium if a much greater effort is not made in research and development by British companies in relation to the best companies worldwide. More chief executives should pay attention to the rate of change of innovation and the rate of change in how products are introduced to the market.

Takeover Provisions

Dr. Wright: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to alter the takeover provisions affecting UK companies. [32129]

Mr. John M. Taylor: We have no plans to alter the current takeover provisions.

Dr. Wright: Does the Minister accept that firms that live in permanent fear of takeover are unlikely to put long-term investment before short-term returns? Does he accept that British firms are peculiarly vulnerable to takeover, especially to foreign takeover, because of the laxity of our takeover rules? Is it not time to revisit the rules by which British firms must live and—too often—die?

Mr. Taylor: On the first point, takeovers play an important part in ensuring that companies are run efficiently, which is in the interests of shareholders and consumers alike. If managers want to retain control of their firms, they must run them as efficiently as possible. As for foreign shareholdings, few countries enjoy more overseas corporate control than the United Kingdom. Inward investment is a two-way street, and it is very welcome.

Mr. Salmond: The Minister seems to be telling us that successful companies do not get taken over. Given the profitability, success and strategic importance of the Royal Bank of Scotland to the Scottish economy, does the Minister welcome the fact that the takeover threat to the bank appears to have receded in the past two weeks?

Mr. Taylor: The existing merger control provisions in this country are satisfactory at the statutory level and at the non-statutory level. Each case is examined on its merits. As for a merger of a particular bank in Scotland, that is a commercial decision for the parties. The necessary statutory and non-statutory issues would be brought into being only if competition issues arise subsequently.

University Research Equipment

Mr. Chidgey: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment his Department has made of the effect of reductions to the education budget on the funding of equipment for research in universities. [32130]

Mr. Ian Taylor: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) a few moments ago.

Mr. Chidgey: Is the Minister aware that, as a direct consequence of the lack of funding for equipment, universities are now unable to undertake critical experiments, and that multinational firms are consequently switching their research programmes from British universities to universities overseas? Does he accept that there is an urgent need for the Government to support universities' budgets, particularly the current £474 million shortfall for priority equipment alone—which is five times the amount that they have had available to spend in previous years? Does he accept that the Government must take some action to help on this issue?

Mr. Taylor: I do not accept that our best research universities are in the state that the hon. Gentleman describes. Nothing I see as I go around all those universities suggests anything other than the excellence of the research that is being carried out. We must be careful about spreading stories about the top universities in this country having such difficulties.
I do not deny that the forefront of research requires the forefront of equipment, which presents particular problems as the pace of change impacts on our research base. However, it is for the vice-chancellors to manage their affairs properly. It is evident that in not all cases have universities properly allocated money for research equipment in accordance with the ambitions that they publicly discuss.
I need much more information from the vice-chancellors to enable me to see what is going on. I underline the fact that, judging by the citations and the articles now being published, British universities are producing excellence, and inward investors welcome the accessibility and excellence of that research base.

Political Donations

Mr. Winnick: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will enter into discussions with the Confederation of British Industry over donations to political parties. [32131]

Mr. Lang: I see no reason to do so.

Mr. Winnick: There is every reason to do so. Does the Secretary of State not realise how scandalous is the fact that those in industry who donate to the Conservative party are, in the main, the same people who receive the peerages and the knighthoods? Since November 1990, when the Prime Minister arrived at No. 10, of the five

peerages and 53 knighthoods given to industrialists, more than two thirds have gone to people involved with companies that have given millions of pounds to the Tory party. The situation is scandalous, and certainly needs reviewing. I hope that the Secretary of State will understand the concern that it causes.

Mr. Lang: If anything is scandalous, it is the Opposition's sour and mean approach to such matters. The fact is that directors have a legal duty to act in the interests of their companies, and all companies must disclose in their company accounts contributions for political purposes of more than £200. The beneficiaries must also be disclosed. That is a fair and sensible way forward.

Points of Order

Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Did you notice that I have been sitting quietly during Question Time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Unusual."] Yes, very unusual. I have been observing the questions being asked, and twice as many Opposition Members as Conservative Members have spoken. Often no Government Back-Benchers at all sought to ask supplementaries on the important subject of trade and industry. When we discuss the pay of Members of Parliament, may we discuss some aspect of performance-related pay, Madam Speaker?

Madam Speaker: That will be a matter for the hon. Gentleman to put to the Leader of the House tomorrow. However, I must tell the House that I am gratified to see that today we have reached a total of 20 questions plus supplementaries. I congratulate the Board of Trade team and Back-Benchers, who have, in the main, been speedy in their questions and answers today.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Further to the point of order that I put to you this morning, Madam Speaker. I understand that Mr. Speaker Weatherill's ruling of 17 February 1992 blocks the early-day motions that I attempted to table last night relating to the North Wales police and child abuse. I should be grateful if you would reconsider the position, because it now seems that one cannot table a motion or a question for oral or written answer; one cannot speak in a debate or, probably, even introduce a Bill drawing on the experience in Clwyd. One cannot raise the issue in a Select Committee or a Standing Committee either. A wall of silence will surround the passage of the Government motion later tonight.
I cannot defend that in my constituency. My constituents were involved, and there are things that should be done before that motion is passed. We should have had a debate in the House on child abuse, and the Secretary of State for Health should have made a statement on the Utting review. This morning a Welsh Office Minister tried to convince me that the Jillings report was defamatory. That is rubbish. What are they trying to hide?
Finally, I want to expose the fact that 25 years ago there was a report on Bryn Estyn, one of the homes involved in the Clwyd child abuse case, but it was never published because the Home Office suppressed it. We cannot close down debate in the House of Commons on an issue as important as child abuse.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. I have a ruling. I am quite prepared. I have carefully considered the points of order that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) raised yesterday, to which I replied, as well as this morning at 9.30 am, and have looked at the two proposed motions that she has attempted to table. I am satisfied that one of her motions breaches the campaign rule, to which she referred and to which my predecessor referred in a ruling that he gave on—the hon. Lady is correct—

17 February 1992 at column 21. As the hon. Lady, I understand, has now been informed by the Table Office, I am content that the other motion be tabled.
Obviously, the hon. Member for Cynon Valley is aware, however, that this motion, along with the three other early-day motions that she tabled on Monday, will be withdrawn automatically as a result of the operation of the House's sub judice rule—that is the House's sub judice rule, not a ruling of the Speaker—if and when the motion setting up a tribunal of inquiry is agreed to by the House. If she is seeking a statement from a Minister or a debate on the matters before that motion is passed, she should ask questions of the Leader of the House tomorrow. She should deal with her Front-Bench team about having the subject placed on the Order Paper. Of course, she will be aware, as the House is aware, that in raising her voice in objection to the motion, which is now on the Order Paper, the setting up of the tribunal will be delayed.

Mr. Tim Devlin: Further to the point of order, Madam Speaker, raised by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on performance-related pay. Like him, I sat quietly through Question Time—

Madam Speaker: Order. Performance-related pay is not a matter for me. What is the point of order for me?

Mr. Devlin: The point of order is simply that, if we were to be paid on that basis, and given that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley represents only 55,000 constituents whereas I represent 80,000, would he be paid five eighths of my salary?

Madam Speaker: If our pay were performance-related, I would say that I spend more time here than anyone.

Mr. Phil Gallie: As the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) observed Members rising to speak in Question Time, I observed the hon. Gentleman never at any time attempting to get to his feet. Does that suggest that he has no interest in trade and industry?

Madam Speaker: I think that we have had a good exchange on the matter.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that the Select Committee on Health is undertaking an extensive inquiry into all aspects of children's health and well-being. Will you clarify whether the ruling that you have just made means that the Select Committee cannot take evidence on Clwyd?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Lady has given me no notice of her point of order and I am not aware of how far the Select Committee has proceeded. I would certainly have to look at the matter before I could give a ruling. I would want to be absolutely clear about it.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Over the years, it is inevitable that many Speakers' rulings have raised proverbial eyebrows,


but none more so than that given by Lord Weatherill in 1992 on campaigning to which you referred. Who makes the judgment on whether something is a campaign? Who initiates it—the Government, the Speaker, or other Members? Such decisions seem to come out of thin air, when the matter is inconvenient.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. Such rulings do not come out of thin air. They come out of very deep consideration of the precedents of the House. Those precedents are sometimes changed. I am prepared to change them if it is common sense and for the convenience of the House. I have looked very carefully at the campaign ruling, especially on this issue, and have given rulings that I think are in the best interests of the House at the present time.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. You have certainly been extremely helpful. Will you clarify a matter for me? Yesterday, the Government also announced that there would be a review of the care and abuse of children and of children's homes and residential accommodation throughout England and Wales. I am particularly concerned about problems that have been encountered in Cheshire, which is also very much in the news. Will you confirm that there are no restrictions on Members who want to take matters forward in respect of England and Wales, but especially in respect of Cheshire?

Madam Speaker: As far as I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is quite correct. There will be no restrictions. The Government's announcement was perfectly clear and it is being interpreted correctly by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. I have gone as far as I can. I have answered four or five points of order on this issue and I can go no further now. If the hon. Gentleman has anything to say to me, I will be pleased to see him to discuss it.

Water (Supply Pipe Responsibility)

Dr. Tony Wright: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to impose a duty upon water companies to maintain and repair domestic supply pipes.
It is appropriate on a fine day in the middle of a fine June for the House to consider the matter of water. When I asked one of my colleagues if he would sponsor this Bill, he was moved to observe that, although he knew that new Labour was characterised by a desire to extend responsibility, he was surprised to learn that the extension of that responsibility now embraced water supply pipes. Let me explain.
A few weeks ago, an elderly lady came to see me. She brought her water bills with her, which, like so many others, she was worried about not being able to pay. She also brought with her a leaflet that she had just received from the South Staffordshire water company about which she was even more worried. It was seeking to sell her an insurance policy and was accompanied by dire warnings of the consequences that would befall her if she did not take up the offer—an offer that she could not afford.
The leaflet is now being distributed across much of the country and I shall read from it because it explains what my proposed Bill is about. Under the stark heading
"They thought they were covered", it says:
As a home owner, you probably already know that the underground water supply that runs from the main external stopcock to your home is your responsibility. What may surprise you, though, is that in the event of a flood caused by a burst pipe, it is unlikely that any standard home insurance policy will cover the cost of repairs … and these repairs can be expensive—a burst main in your garden, for instance, may well mean the hire of heavy digging equipment.
Examples are given of the expense and trauma experienced by householders who suffered such a fate before they saw the light and bought the company's insurance scheme. One person is quoted as saying:
I had to have all my underground pipes and drains removed. I wish the scheme had been invented earlier, as the work was very expensive.
Another person said:
What prompted me to get the scheme was a burst pipe—it was a very traumatic experience".
We then have a plumber who says:
Before the Home Service Scheme, I used to dread presenting customers with the bill at the end of a job.
I hope that the House will understand why my constituent and many like her suffer such anxiety when addressed in this way. She was already worried about her ability to pay her water bills and was then further worried by the prospect of huge repair bills and an insurance policy that she cannot afford. That is the situation that my Bill seeks to tackle.
It is neither sensible nor fair that householders should be responsible for the supply pipes that run underneath their gardens. Similar arguments apply to sewers. I have a constituent whose garden is currently awash with unpleasant emissions from broken sewers—not his—for which nobody will assume responsibility. However, my Bill starts with water supply pipes. The time has come to transfer responsibility for supply pipes from householders to water companies, and that is what the Bill would do.
The old water authorities had come to the view that that was sensible. Before privatisation, the Government consulted on whether the new companies should be responsible for supply pipes. In relation to the problems of leakage and contamination, the Government's consultation paper said, rightly:
Whilst the water industry has no direct responsibility for these pipes, those problems are likely to remain unresolved.
In the event, and no doubt influenced by the imperatives of privatisation, the Government decided not to proceed with a transfer of responsibility. That was a major missed opportunity. It is now time to put it right.
Not only would that be fair, but there would be other considerable advantages and benefits. It would help us to tackle the problem of water leakage, which currently and scandalously accounts for between a quarter and a third of all the water put into supply in this country. About a third of that leakage comes from supply pipes, for which the water companies can at present disclaim responsibility. That surely makes no sense. Water companies alone have the expertise, equipment and resources to tackle that problem; householders do not.
If responsibility for pipes through to the internal stopcock were transferred to the water companies, it would offer the opportunity for concerted action on leakage. It would also make it possible to dispense with all the troublesome valves and joints that are currently required because of the need to police the boundary between company pipes and consumer pipes. The potential benefits in terms of leakage reduction are considerable.
A recent article in the journal Utility Week made the following assessment:
Put simply into numbers: if companies are twice as efficient as individual customers at managing pipes and leakage, then around 17 per cent. of leakage would be saved simply by this change of responsibility and management, at no net expense to anyone. More sophisticated figures are needed, but this would be a similar order of saving of water resource to that of the whole of the government and Ofwat's metering plans, without any of the social welfare loss and extra costs they are said to involve.
What is true of leakage is also true of lead, where it is only the companies that can do what has to be done, especially in meeting the tougher targets of the new drinking water directive in promoting public health.
Above all, my proposal is fair. The present position is scandalous, anomalous and indefensible. Other utility suppliers—gas, electricity and telephones—are responsible for what they supply right up to people's homes. Consider the consequences that would follow if that were not the case. Yet water remains an anomalous exception, and the effect of the anomaly is to burden householders with a responsibility that they are unable to discharge and to remove responsibility from the water companies for essential repairs that only they can realistically undertake.
As recently as a few days ago, the Director General of Water Services wrote to all the water companies to ask them how they proposed to discharge their newly acquired duty to promote the efficient use of water. I have a copy of that letter. One paragraph is headed "Customer supply-pipe leakage". This is what it says:
Companies claim that leakage from customers' supply pipes is a major source of waste. They have powers to issue waste notices which require customers to mend their pipes and, if necessary, to repair the pipe themselves and bill the customer. Many have been reluctant to do so, because of the uncertain financial impact on the customer or house-owner. Companies, however, have a financial interest in the reduction of such waste in that water treatment distribution costs are saved.
The letter ends:
Companies' plans should include their approach to supply pipe leakage, including services and assistance they offer. Some companies have introduced a free leak detection service to encourage the detection of leaks. All companies should consider this step, and how they might help their customers with the costs involved—for example by providing a low cost repair service. In certain situations, in particular, in areas affected by company water-use restrictions, companies should consider providing a free detection and repair service.
There we have the regulator telling the companies to get to grips with the issue of supply pipes, yet because of the statutory position there is no coherent approach. Some companies are doing very little. Others, led by South Staffordshire, are trying to sell profit-making insurance policies. Severn Trent Water Ltd. has a flat-rate repair scheme. North West Water Ltd. is offering free repairs for a year.
That cannot be satisfactory. A basic responsibility of that type should not depend on where one lives. That is why, as the industry's consumer service committees are starting to say, the time has come to make the companies directly responsible for supply pipes.
My final observation is designed to be helpful. Last night we irrigated Holland, and we all feel a lot better for it. Today, the water companies could make us feel better still by voluntarily assuming responsibility for people's water pipes. Their tarnished reputations would instantly be enhanced by truly Venables proportions. They do not need to wait for the legislation that I am proposing to do the right and sensible thing.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Tony Wright, Mrs. Helen Jackson, Mr. Richard Burden, Mrs. Jane Kennedy, Mr. David Hanson, Mr. Jeff Rooker, Ms Estelle Morris, Mr. David Jamieson, Mr. Paul Tyler, Mr. David Nicholson, Mr. Frank Field and Miss Kate Hoey.

WATER (SUPPLY PIPE RESPONSIBILITY)

Dr. Tony Wright accordingly presented a Bill to impose a duty upon water companies to maintain and repair domestic supply pipes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 July and to be printed. [Bill 155.]

Sentencing Proposals

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I have also had to limit all Back-Bench speeches to 10 minutes.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move,
That this House supports the proposals set out in the White Paper `Protecting the Public' to introduce automatic life sentences for serious violent and sex offenders; mandatory minimum prison sentences for persistent house burglars and drug dealers; and to introduce greater honesty into the sentencing process.
The first duty of any Government is to maintain law and order, to ensure that their citizens can walk the streets in safety and sleep safely in their homes. I shall refer this afternoon to a coherent series of policies which add up to a central theme that gives the White Paper its title, "Protecting the Public". This is the objective that I have put at the top of my list of priorities since I became Home Secretary over three years ago. It is a continuing programme, building on real achievements.
This week alone has seen the announcement of new funding for local projects to tackle crime, the opening of the new crime prevention college at Easingwold, new proposals for dealing with sex offenders, and a White Paper published today on the future development of the criminal record system. If we maintain this impetus, real progress can be made.
Recorded crime in England and Wales has fallen for three consecutive years since 1993. Over this short period there has been a reduction of nearly 500,000 recorded crimes—the biggest fall since records began. We cannot be certain of continuing that trend with every set of figures, but it is a massive reduction that reflects great credit on the police, who lead the world in the use of new technology such as closed circuit television to deter and detect crime.
The White Paper records progress in our strategy. Partnership is developing. Only last Friday I saw an excellent example of partnership working in Plymouth, where the police and local people have developed a concept of community policing. Each ward has its own team of police officers who liaise regularly with community representatives.
We have given the police the powers and resources that they need to fight crime. We have increased spending on policing by 100 per cent. in real terms since 1978–79, to £7 billion. The figures for 1996 will show an increase of 16,000 police officers since 1979. There are now 17,000 more civilians to support the police, and there will be funding to allow the recruitment of 5,000 additional police officers over the next three years.
We have not hesitated to provide additional powers—not just the new public order powers in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, but new powers for the police in relation to bail, such as the power to attach conditions to police bail and the power to arrest defendants who breach bail.

Mr. William O'Brien: Chapter 9 of the White Paper to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers concerns fairness in sentencing policy.
I recently wrote to the Home Secretary about the murder of one of my constituents, Wayne Margrave, who was run down and killed. The car driver also severely injured a young lady who was caring for my constituent. The man responsible was sentenced to four years, but if this document is implemented he will be out in two. When I asked that the matter be referred to the Court of Appeal, no assistance was forthcoming from the Government. In the context of fair sentencing, will the Minister give that case serious consideration?

Mr. Howard: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's constituents who are victims of that dreadful crime, but he needs to put the case with a degree of accuracy. He will know that there could not have been a conviction of murder in that case, because, if the conviction had been of murder, the sentence would have been life imprisonment and not four years' imprisonment. He has written a letter about the case. The case was considered by the courts. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the White Paper that we are debating today proposes a new approach to offences of serious violence. I hope that he will give voice to the concern that he has expressed by supporting the proposals in the White Paper.

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: The Home Secretary, in his opening remarks, has painted a picture of a beautiful land in which crime levels are decreasing all the time. That situation is not recognisable to most people who live in our towns and cities. What is he doing about the astronomical rate of vehicle crime and the appalling recovery rate of stolen vehicles? We have had nothing but complacency from his Department in this regard.

Mr. Howard: I am most interested in the example that the hon. Gentleman cited. Vehicle crime is one of the categories of crime that has shown one of the biggest reductions in recent years. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on the Labour Front Bench has just laughed. If he thinks that people do not report the fact that their car has been stolen, he is living in cloud cuckoo land. The recorded figures show that there were more than 80,000 fewer instances of vehicle theft over the past two years. That is a genuine figure. Everyone reports the fact that their car has been stolen. Labour Members refuse to accept the facts and they refuse to accept the figures that are self-evidently correct.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I have been the subject of three offences in the past four years. The first instance was a theft that occurred in the House of Commons, but no action was taken; the second instance involved someone attempting to interfere with my credit card, which I reported to the police in south London, but no action was taken; and on the third occasion someone broke into my vehicle. What did I do on that occasion? Nothing—it is a waste of time. Millions of people throughout the country agree with me. The figures are fraudulent, they mean nothing and the public know the truth.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman has manifestly failed to deal with the precise point that I made: no one fails to report the fact that their car has been stolen. Over the past two years, there have been more than 80,000


fewer recorded instances of vehicle theft. That is a clear demonstration that we are making progress in the fight against crime. Of course we have not eliminated crime and of course, alas, hon. Members and others will still be the victims of crime. I am addressing—in the White Paper that we are debating today and in the other steps that we are taking to fight crime—the Government's strategy to make further progress in the fight against crime because it needs to be made.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Home Secretary agree with me that one of the reasons—perhaps a significant reason—for the decline in reported crime is that there are currently 1 million fewer young men aged under 25 than there were 20 years ago? Most crime is committed by young men under the age of 25.

Mr. Howard: No, I do not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. The Government have looked at the extent to which demographic changes of that kind might have contributed to the fall in recorded crime over the past three years. Any effect that that might have had is small when compared with the more than 8 per cent. reduction in crime that we have seen over the past three years. I am happy to write to the hon. and learned Gentleman with the precise figures.
I must now make some progress. Before that series of ill-timed and ill-considered interventions, I referred to the additional powers that we have given to the police. In addition to those extra powers, the police should soon have the new powers of arrest relating to knife carrying provided by the legislation introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), which is currently passing through Parliament with Government support.
However, I believe that the public need greater protection from serious, dangerous and persistent offenders. That is what the radical new proposals set out in the White Paper are designed to achieve. The proposals are targeted at rapists, persistent burglars, dealers in hard drugs and other criminals who time and again commit offences that are of particular concern to the public.
The sentencing measures are part of a wider package. Earlier this week, I announced proposals for better ways of safeguarding the public—especially children—against sex offenders. Today I am publishing a White Paper, "On the Record", which sets out our proposals for new arrangements for accessing criminal records in England and Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will bring forward similar proposals for Scotland.
The police currently carry out more than a million checks each year, of which 600,000 are for child protection purposes. Extending access to checks under the current arrangements would mean not only increasing the burden of work on the police but taking valuable resources away from core policing activities. We therefore propose to establish a criminal records agency which will relieve the police of much of that work. The agency will be self-financing on the basis of fees paid for checks. Individuals will be responsible for meeting the cost of any check undertaken of them, and charges will be kept as low as possible.
In future there will be three different types of checks. The first will be in a new criminal conviction certificate which will be available only to the individuals concerned.
It will show any convictions that are held at a national level and are not "spent" under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
The second is a "full" check. It will be available for those who are in occupations that are exceptions to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, such as doctors and teachers. Both the individual and the employer will receive information as a result of that check. The information disclosed will include those convictions that are "spent" under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and any cautions that are recorded at a national level. Employers who wish those checks to be undertaken will be required to register with the agency and to agree to abide by a code of practice that will ensure that proper procedures are followed in handling criminal record information. We shall consult about the contents of the code of practice.
The third type of check is an "enhanced" check. It will be available only to those who work on a regular, unsupervised basis with children under the age of 18 and to those who apply for gaming, betting and lottery licences. In addition to a "full" check, it will include a check of local police records for minor convictions, cautions and any relevant non-conviction information about the applicant. We have given particular thought to the issue and we have decided that, on balance, it is right to continue to provide non-conviction information. However, we have recognised the need to have clear guidance about both the information and the circumstances in which it can be disclosed.
The latter provision will cover information that can be fully substantiated by the police and will be released only on the authority of a senior police officer. It will be given to the individual as well as to the employer and the employer must decide its relevance to the post in question. The only time that an individual will not be told about any information that is released to an employer is when it might prejudice a current police investigation.
The White Paper proposals place no new requirement upon any employer to seek a criminal record check, and checks will be mandatory only when there is an existing statutory requirement—for example, in cases of licensing. I believe that the proposals will play a valuable role in our strategy of protecting the public from crime.

Ms Ann Coffey: The Home Secretary referred to provisions for employers. Has he considered the case of voluntary organisations which do not employ their volunteers who often work in very sensitive areas with young children and other vulnerable groups? Will he extend the access provision to such organisations so that they may check on their volunteers?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention, and there is a strong case for extending the checks in the way that she suggests. Before I leave that point, I should add that the proposals in the White Paper that we have published today have been warmly welcomed by the police. I have just received a press release issued by the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales, which welcomes the measures and says that they
may even deter criminals who will be aware that they will not be able to hide their criminal activities from potential employers and is therefore another measure which puts victims first put and underpins the commitment to protecting the public.


[Interruption.] I note that the views of the association are apparently a subject for ribaldry for Opposition Back Benchers.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: I welcome the enormous and good work that my right hon. and learned Friend is doing and I also welcome the fact that non-conviction information will be carried for certain individuals and organisations who look after children. What right of appeal will there be for an organisation that is refused information by a senior police officer if it feels that that information is crucial, although it does not involve convictions, for an applicant who may be employed to look after children in its care?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. The question of appeal is mentioned in the White Paper and the details of that important matter are set out there.

Mr. Jack Straw: Before the Secretary of State leaves the subject of criminal records, will he confirm that the White Paper contains no proposals to implement the Home Affairs Select Committee's unanimous recommendation for the proper regulation of the private security industry, and that the effect is to create a huge, gaping loophole in the arrangements? The proposals, as I read them, may allow private security employers to weed out the crooks who work for private security firms, but they will do nothing to weed out the crooks who own and operate some of those private security firms.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Select Committee's proposals on the private security industry are still under consideration. The measures set out in White Paper today will be of considerable assistance and relevance in the context of that industry, and not merely in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman. The proposals will enable firms that are not involved in the industry, but which employ people for security purposes, to carry out checks, and that will be a considerable safeguard. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that.
I turn now to our sentencing proposals. They are under three main headings. The first is "Honesty in sentencing". The public are outraged when someone sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment is released after four or five years or when someone sentenced to seven days' imprisonment is released after one night. I agree with the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor, who recently said that those arrangements
have the appearance of a charade with everyone engaged in a calculation of how much less than the pronounced sentence will actually be served".
I therefore propose that the sentence served should bear a much closer relationship to the sentence passed by the court.
Prisoners who behave well and co-operate should be able to earn up to 20 per cent. off their sentence. Everyone else will have to serve their sentences in full. That will create an incentive for prisoners to behave well while in prison. Governors will retain the power to take away time

earned as a sanction for disciplinary offences—the Opposition's Front-Bench spokesman in another place, in the debate on 23 May, was quite wrong to suggest that governors would be, as she put it, stripped of that power.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The Home Secretary has selectively called in aid the views of the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor. Has the Home Secretary also considered the broader view taken by the Lord Chief Justice of his White Paper, when he said that grave consequences would follow if the main proposals were put into effect? The Home Secretary mentioned one sentence from the Lord Chief Justice, but does he accept the broad attack on the totality of his proposals?

Mr. Howard: I do not think that it is a secret that, on the other proposals in the White Paper, the former Lord Chief Justice and I have different views. Similarly, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is seriously suggesting that I was attempting to conceal that from the House or the world. It may be of interest to note that in this instance the former Lord Chief Justice and I are happily in agreement.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Is it not arrogant to introduce the name of the former Lord Chief Justice in such a way when the Home Secretary knows that many of us have come to the Chamber to listen to what he has to say? It is our first opportunity to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman respond to the final speech of the former Lord Chief Justice in another place, during which he more or less said that he had no confidence in a Home Secretary who should introduce such measures based on such "flimsy and dubious research".

Mr. Howard: I am coming to the rest of my proposals, if the hon. Gentleman will contain himself. I will deal with them in detail. The hon. Gentleman has misquoted the former Lord Chief Justice, but there is no secret that the former Lord Chief Justice—[Interruption.] He criticised the proposals but he did not—

Mr. Sheerman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Home Secretary says that I have misquoted the former Lord Chief Justice. He said in column 1025 of the Official Report of another place on 23 May
that never in the history of our criminal law"—

Madam Speaker: Order. It is not a point of order if the hon. Gentleman merely repeats what he said earlier. He should contain himself and make a speech later.

Mr. Howard: I shall come to my other proposals and to the evidence for them. I hope that today we shall have rather less equivocal language from those who occupy the Opposition Front Bench than we have had so far.
First, I shall deal with honesty in sentencing. The White Paper makes it clear that the courts will be expected when passing sentence to take account of the abolition of parole and changes in early-release arrangements. That could be achieved either by a practice direction, if the Lord Chief Justice decided that it would be appropriate to issue such a direction, or by specific statutory provision. The Government therefore do not intend or expect the proposal to result in a general increase in sentences actually served. Its purpose, as I have made clear from


the outset, is to introduce greater honesty and clarity into the sentencing process and to restore credibility to the sentence passed by the court.

Mr. Alex Cathie: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Howard: I have already given way once to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I have no doubt that he will be able to make his speech in due course.
The second key element of my proposals is that anyone convicted for the second time of a serious sexual or violent offence should receive an automatic life sentence unless there are genuinely exceptional circumstances. The offences covered by this proposal would include, among others, rape, attempted rape, attempted murder, manslaughter and the most serious woundings. The purpose of the proposal is to ensure that no one who comes into the category will be released until an assessment has been made of whether he or she still poses a risk to the public.
Life imprisonment is, of course, already the maximum penalty for serious violent and sexual offences such as rape and attempted murder. In 1994, however, 217 offenders were convicted of a serious violent or sexual offence having previously been convicted of at least one similar offence, and only 10 of them were sentenced to life imprisonment. Again in 1994, about 40 violent or sexual crimes were committed by offenders who had already been convicted of two such offences. The Government's proposals mean that in future such offenders would be released if, and only if, there had been an assessment that it was safe for them to be released. Those who are released will remain on licence and subject to recall for the rest of their lives.
The third element of our proposals is that the courts should be required to impose a minimum prison sentence on offenders who are convicted of domestic burglary or dealing in hard drugs who have two previous convictions for similar offences. It is proposed in the White Paper that there should be a minimum sentence on third conviction of three years in the case of domestic burglary and seven years in relation to drug trafficking offences. The courts will have discretion to set aside the mandatory penalty in genuinely exceptional circumstances and to impose a higher sentence than the mandatory minimum in appropriate cases.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Home Secretary agree that, in dealing with burglaries, attention should be directed on those who habitually receive stolen goods and thereby encourage others to burgle?

Mr. Howard: I do indeed agree with the hon. Gentleman. The fact that a particular offence does not come within the very precisely targeted category that has been selected for mandatory minimum sentences does not, of course, mean that the courts should pass a life sentence in those cases. The hon. Gentleman has correctly identified a category that will no doubt receive the attention of the courts where appropriate.
Persistent burglars and drug dealers are a menace to society, and they should know that if they continue to offend they will go to prison for a long time. In too many cases, non-custodial sentences or very short prison sentences are imposed on burglars who have numerous

previous convictions. It just cannot be right that burglars before the court for their seventh or subsequent conviction are getting average sentences of 19 months—serving perhaps 10 months. That is only a few months longer than the 15 or 16 months—serving perhaps eight months—of first offenders who are sent to prison. Stiff minimum sentences will provide a real deterrent to persistent offenders and ensure that those who continue to offend receive the punishment that they so richly deserve.
I do not accept that these proposals encroach improperly on judicial independence. It has always been Parliament's responsibility to set the statutory framework for sentencing, and for judges to exercise their discretion within that framework.
It has been argued that mandatory sentences will not work because it is the certainty of conviction that deters offenders, not the severity of sentence. But improving detection rates and imposing stiffer sentences are not alternatives, they are complementary. The most effective deterrent is to have both. The police are taking action to improve detection rates in a number of ways, for example, by targeting known and persistent offenders. The Government's proposals will back that up. Bringing persistent burglars back before the courts time and time again is useless if the sentence imposed is one that they can regard as a minor occupational hazard in their chosen career.
Ros Burnett of Oxford university, in a study entitled "The Dynamics of Recidivism", found on the basis of interviews with prisoners that
Avoidance of imprisonment was the most frequently mentioned reason for not wanting to re-offend".
Under our proposals, persistent offenders will know that they will get a stiff sentence if they persist in offending.
The public rightly expect protection from serious, dangerous and persistent offenders. The proposals that I have outlined are carefully targeted at crimes of particular concern to the public—serious sex and violent offences, domestic burglary, and dealing in hard drugs. The Government believe that urgent action is required to provide a real deterrent to such offenders; to punish severely those who continue to offend regardless; and above all to protect the public from their activities. The White Paper "Protecting the Public", and our new proposals for sex offenders and for making better preventive use of criminal records, are further steps towards protecting the public in that way.
I now deal with the position taken by the Opposition parties. I am surprised that the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who is deputy leader of the Labour party, is not present for the debate, as his ambitions to become shadow Home Secretary are famous, and this would have been the perfect opportunity for him to size up the Home Affairs portfolio and to learn from the many mistakes of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw).
The hon Gentleman's approach to policy making consists of a four-stage process typical of the manic depressive. The first is the manic phase. He hears about someone else's idea. "That's a good one," he says, skipping excitedly around his room. During the second stage there is a frenzy of activity. He does not need anything more than Snopake, a photocopier and a fax machine—the usual tools of trade of the


bottom-of-the-market plagiarist. The third stage consists of panic as the plan unravels. Another Straw fiasco is complete. That leads to the final stage—deep depression.
Let us take the teenage curfew saga as a classic example. President Clinton makes a speech on teenage curfews. The hon. Gentleman gets to work within hours. This is a golden opportunity. He can see the headlines now: "Straw to crack down on kids". "Tony will be pleased,' he says to himself. "My job in the shadow Cabinet is safe after all."
The trouble is that the hon. Gentleman's colleague, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), had already condemned the idea as "utter and complete nonsense", and the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said the following day:
I'm not sure that a curfew would be a workable solution.
They were not alone. The chief constable of Gloucestershire, speaking as the representative of the Association of Chief Police Officers, said:
I think there are some huge practical difficulties.
In the face of that barrage, the hon. Gentleman back-tracked rapidly.

Mr. Donald Anderson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Given your traditional role of protector of the House, would it be appropriate for you to remind the Home Secretary that he is not at a Conservative party conference now?

Madam Speaker: That is not really a point of order for me. I am sure that the Home Secretary is well aware of where he is at the present time.

Mr. Howard: I understand the discomfort of members of the Labour party. I know that they do not want to hear all this. Let me remind them, however, of what the hon. Member for Blackburn told the Sunday Times. He said:
The age groups affected could be people up to age 16.
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman stands by that quote; perhaps he will enlighten us now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."] I understand why the hon. Gentleman does not wish to enlighten us. The next day, the line was completely different. "We are not thinking about the under-16s," the hon. Gentleman said. He told The Guardian:
We are thinking about the under 10s possibly being off the streets by 9.00 pm".
What had started as a war on teenage crime ended as an attempt to protect the under-10s from themselves, all in 24 hours flat.
The hon. Gentleman tried one last desperate throw. We want to hear more about this: we want to hear the answer. A nationwide search was undertaken to identify a police force that might he willing to undertake a pilot scheme, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) was recruited to the cause. The Guardian reported that the West Midlands police were willing to start a pilot scheme; that was in The Guardian, so it must be true. A meeting was to be held between the police and the hon. Member for Yardley, after which the details would be announced. The meeting took place on 12 June, but for some unaccountable reason nothing has been heard

from the hon. Gentleman or the hon. Lady since. Could that be because no plans for a curfew were agreed after all, or because there was little or no support for the hon. Gentleman's ideas? I think we should be told, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will deal with that point when he replies.

Mr. Don Touhig: As the Home Secretary is quoting from newspapers, may I ask whether he saw a piece in The Independent last week which said that the measure that he is describing was really an attempt to regain the initiative as a result of Labour's efforts? Is the Home Secretary, in fact, trying desperately to paper over the cracks in the Conservative party?

Mr. Howard: I will leave the hon. Gentleman to take what comfort he may from The Independent.

Mr. Straw: Perhaps the Home Secretary would also like to take some comfort, from someone whom he has already quoted—the president of the Police Superintendents Association, Mr. Brian Mackenzie. The Home Secretary may have missed it, but Mr. Mackenzie said of our proposals:
Police superintendents have been complaining bitterly over the last few years about juveniles running wild and causing problems. The proposals from Jack Straw are one of a range of measures well worth considering. I am delighted that responsible authorities are looking at it.

Mr. Howard: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was unable to answer either of the specific and direct questions that I had put to him a few moments before. I doubt very much that, when the president of the Police Superintendents Association referred to "juveniles", he was referring to the under-10s. He may have been misled by the report in the Sunday Times. He probably did not appreciate that, within 24 hours, the hon. Gentleman would back-track and change his proposals for dealing with the under-16s to a proposal to protect the under-10s from themselves.
There has been a great deal of debate about my proposals on sentencing since I first outlined them last October. Strong views have been expressed both for and against those proposals. The Labour party's reaction has been instructive.

Mr. George Howarth: The Home Secretary referred to an article in The Guardian about an initiative taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) and asked what had become of it. He might be interested to know that I was with my hon. Friend when she met West Midlands police. We met a group of local residents in her constituency. West Midlands police said that our proposals for under10-year-olds were perfectly plausible and that it would work with the local authority to introduce them in a particular part of her constituency. That is what became of the proposal. Perhaps the Home Secretary will tell us whether he thinks it is a good thing for children under 10 to be out on the street late at night.

Mr. Howard: Of course I do not. If the police find youngsters on the street in need of protection, they already have powers to take the youngsters to a safe place. The


hon. Gentleman did not tell us is whether the pilot scheme that he and the hon. Member for Yardley asked West Midlands police to carry out in Yardley is to take place.

Mr. Howarth: Yes.

Mr. Howard: Instead of making sedentary comments, will the hon. Gentleman state from the Dispatch Box that a pilot proposal will take place, because that is not the information that I have received from West Midlands police.

Mr. Howarth: I repeat that we held discussions with West Midlands police.

Mr. Howard: Is a scheme going to take place?

Mr. Howarth: The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me to answer his question, so perhaps he will be courteous enough to allow me to do so. Discussions have subsequently been held with Birmingham city council. The police and the council are now working on a proposal for a specific part of the Yardley constituency to see whether a pilot curfew for under-10s could be made to work. I understand—I have no reason to believe otherwise—that there is every reason to believe that the pilot project will go ahead.
Unless the Home Secretary has some evidence to the contrary, perhaps he will explain why the local residents, police officers and members of the local authority we met did not feel that the powers available to the police and local authority were sufficient to stop young children under 10 being out on the streets to no useful purpose late at night. If he cannot explain that, we must assume that he supports under-10s being on the street late at night.

Mr. Howard: I have just explained what powers already exist. The hon. Gentleman has manifestly failed to repeat from the Dispatch Box the words that he was using from a sedentary position a few moments ago. He and the hon. Member for Yardley told The Guardian that a pilot scheme would take place. We have heard nothing since. My information from West Midlands police is that no pilot scheme will take place; the House will draw its own conclusions from the hon. Gentleman's intervention from the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I am sure that the Home Secretary will forgive me if I take him back to the subject of the debate. Has he had an opportunity to study what the senior judges, including Lord Justice Taylor, have said about the dangers inherent in life sentences being imposed in the manner proposed by the White Paper—the dangers to the victim himself or, more probably, herself?

Mr. Howard: Of course I have studied that, but I do not accept the views that have been expressed, because the arguments advanced in another place are arguments against any life sentence. If the hon. Gentleman accepts those views, perhaps he will tell the House whether he is against any life sentence. If that line of argument is accepted, there is an incentive for the offender to take more serious action and even to kill.
The truth is that, when someone commits a rape, he is most unlikely to be in the state of mind that will lead him to make a cold and calculating decision about what his next act should be. If he is in that state of mind and makes such a cold and calculating decision, he will know perfectly well that, if caught and convicted, when the judge fixes the tariff part of the life sentence, it is likely to be a different tariff for rape than for murder. That will be something to be taken into account in planning his behaviour. If he behaves in that cold and calculating way, which is extremely unlikely, he will know that there continues to be a deterrent against further serious criminal conduct.
When I announced my proposals, colleagues of the hon. Member for Blackburn rushed to condemn them one after another. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) called them "daft". The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth called them a "farce". Labour's Front-Bench spokesman in the other place called my proposals "deplorable" and hoped that the next Session was sufficiently curtailed to make it impossible for my proposals to become law. Last month, Lord Williams of Mostyn, another Labour Front-Bench spokesman in the other place, called minimum sentences "a perversion of justice". Those statements could not be clearer.
As Labour is root and branch opposed to my proposals, why does the hon. Member for Blackburn find it so hard to echo that aggressive rhetoric in the House? Why does he confine himself to such weasel words? I will tell the House why the hon. Gentleman has thus far been so muted—because he is under orders from the Leader of the Opposition to avoid any headline saying "Labour opposes tough action on crime". I serve notice on the hon. Gentleman that his tactics are transparent and will fail.
At least the Liberal Democrats are honest. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said that I should be ashamed of my proposals. Let me answer him directly. I shall never be ashamed of proposing greater protection for the public from dangerous criminals. I shall never be ashamed of proposing tough deterrent sentences for career burglars and hard-drug dealers. I shall never be ashamed of bringing greater honesty to the sentencing process. The police overwhelmingly support those proposals, and so do the public. I warn the hon. and learned Gentleman that his parliamentary candidates will regret his remarks, even if he does not.
The Labour party opposes statutory minimum sentences for burglars and drug dealers, mandatory life sentences for dangerous violent criminals and the ending of automatic early release from prison. Labour will not support our proposals in the Division tonight and will do its best to stop them becoming law. We will make sure that the public understand that a Labour Government would not introduce those proposals. Only this Government can be trusted to do so. Only this Government genuinely believe that tough action is needed to protect the public. Only this Government will take that action. The White Paper provides for that, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move, to leave out from House to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
`notes that given the doubling of crime since 1979, the record of Her Majesty's Government on crime is the worst of any British administration since the war and the worst record of 16 western


countries surveyed by the Home Office; further notes that the proposals contained in the White Paper "Protecting the Public" (Cm 3190) represent a complete reversal of the sentencing policies of Her Majesty's Government as contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1991; and believes that the comprehensive proposals of Her Majesty's Opposition to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime will be far more effective in tackling crime and disorder in England and Wales, and in ensuring tough and appropriate sentences for serious or persistent criminals within a proper framework of justice.'.
The Home Secretary spoke for 42 minutes. The House has listened to one of the most puerile and pathetic speeches ever from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, which demeaned his high office. Of those 42 minutes, the Home Secretary devoted fewer than 10 to the ostensible subject of the debate. He devoted the rest of his speech to a White Paper published today, so that he could avoid publicity about proposals that are so embarrassing to him, and to making insults of the kind we are so used to hearing from the Home Secretary.
This is Crime Week but, under this Government, every week is crime week for the British people. So far this week, the British public have been the victims of 150,000 criminal offences—50,000 a day, according to Home Office estimates in the British crime survey.
There was a time when crime happened to someone else. In 1971, The Times commented how, after six years of Labour Governments, crime had simply dropped off the political agenda. Today, however—when the Conservative party has been in power for 20 of the past 25 years—crime, the fear of crime and the experience of crime has affected almost everyone in the land.
Crime has fractured communities. It has forced people to change the way in which they live, and it has forced up the cost of living. Insurance premiums for cars and homes have rocketed far above the rate of inflation since 1979.
The Government's record on crime is the worst of any British Administration since the war, and the worst of any western Government. Crime under the Tories has risen twice as fast as it did under Labour. Between 1987 and 1993, crime in England and Wales rose further and faster than in any of 16 western countries surveyed by the Home Office.
People are not troubled only by specific recorded crime—they are troubled by disorder, loutish behaviour, graffiti, criminal damage and anti-social behaviour by neighbours. In 1994–95, incidents of disorder recorded by the police rose 12 per cent. in a single year.
Recorded crime has doubled in the past 17 years, yet, for all the bluster we heard from the Secretary of State, the system for catching, punishing and deterring criminals in that 17 years has gone into reverse. The number of people convicted or cautioned was lower in 1995 than it was in 1979.

Mr. Walter Sweeney: In view of the hon. Gentleman's loud concern about the crime rate, does he still think that he was right to vote against allowing the Attorney-General the power to appeal against soft sentences?

Mr. Straw: Opposition Members will take no lectures from the Conservative party, which has presided over record increases of crime. Nor will we take any lectures on voting records, as the hon. Gentleman voted to prevent

many victims of crime from receiving decent compensation and, in 1988, the Secretary of State voted against a ban proposed by the Opposition to prevent youngsters under 16 from purchasing knives.

Mr. Clive Soley: The Home Secretary ducked that issue in his speech. Not only did he vote in 1988 against restrictions on the sale of knives to those under 16, but the previous Home Secretary and the Minister under him also objected to an Opposition proposal that would have restricted the sale of arms and imitation firearms by post.
We note that, at Dunblane—I hope that the Home Secretary is listening—the guns were obtained by post. We were pointing out that possibility—following Hungerford—in that proposal. The real question for the Home Secretary is, why did the Government oppose those measures then, and why did they specifically vote against restricting knives for 16-year-olds?

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is of course right. In the debates during the passage of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, in which my hon. Friend took such an important part, there were many occasions on which Ministers either opposed what we were doing or complimented us on the improvements that we had made to it.
For some of the most serious criminal offences, the way in which the gap has widened between crimes committed and offenders convicted since 1979 has been alarming. In 1980, almost four in 10 recorded rapes resulted in conviction. By 1994, the proportion had dropped to just one in 10. In 1980, 9 per cent. of domestic burglaries resulted in conviction. By 1994, the proportion was down to 3 per cent.
In the space of five years, between 1989 and 1994, the number of violent crimes rose by a quarter, while the number of convictions fell by a third. Even when someone finally gets to court, the sentence they receive may depend as much on the chance of where they are tried as on the severity of the offence. The proportion of indictable offences tried in magistrates courts that lead to a prison sentence varies by a factor of 10. In the Staffordshire, Moorlands court, one in six defendants end up inside; but in the Maidenhead court the proportion is one in 66.
The lack of consistency between courts is matched by a lack of progression in sentencing. The fact—according to parliamentary answers given to me by the Secretary of State—that someone imprisoned for domestic burglary is given the same term of 15 months on the first, second or third conviction is bizarre. Even odder is the fact that, according to the Government's own figures, the prison term for a third conviction for drug dealing, at 30 months, is two months shorter than that for a first offence.
As the public's concern about crime has risen, and public confidence in the Government's ability to do anything about it has fallen, so the Government's response has been a blizzard of legislation on criminal justice. There have been 33 separate measures for England and Wales since 1979—more Bills on criminal justice in the past 17 years than in the previous 50.
It would be one thing if each of those Bills had been carefully prepared and they were consistent one with another. Instead, some have signalled sudden lurches in policy that, far from advancing the fight against crime,


have made it more difficult. As the outgoing Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor, commented in his King's college lecture in March:
the proper balance between continuity and change is in dire danger … the criminal law should not be subject to arbitrary change by the powers that be, or to the vagaries of fashion".
Overall, not least as a result of that torrent of legislation, the criminal justice processes in this country are now in chronic crisis, with rising costs, increasing delay and plummeting public satisfaction.
This year, the Secretary of State told readers of The Sun that the current sentencing system and criminal justice process
is a farce and makes a mockery of the courts.
The figures that I have produced today show that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was right about that, if about little else.
The question is: who has been responsible for that "farce" and that "mockery"? Was it the Lord Chief Justice and his judicial colleagues who devised the system? Was it the Labour party, or the Liberal Democrats? Or was it someone else? Even today, a Conservative candidate writing in The Times says that the people to blame for the mess are "officialdom", as though each one of the Secretary of State's predecessors as Home Secretary, such as the present Chancellor of the Exchequer or the distinguished former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), had been mere putty in the hands of his civil servants.
It is not the officials who are to blame, nor the judges, but this Government, this Prime Minister and this Secretary of State. The current sentencing system is less than five years old. It was laid down by the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which was pushed through the House by Conservative Ministers. The very people who now claim that the system is a mockery and a farce were the architects of that system in the first place.
How dare the Secretary of State blame others for the farce and the mockery of the current sentencing system, when it is he and his ministerial colleagues who are principally to blame? It is they who are the guilty men and women, and it is they who should admit that the White Paper represents a rejection of almost everything that the Conservative party has done on sentencing in the past 17 years.
The Secretary of State now calls for honesty in sentencing. What an admission that is about the past 17 years of sentencing policy under the Conservatives.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Would it be fair to characterise the Home Secretary as the Pol Pot of British politics, always pretending to return to "year zero" at successive party conferences, although to find out the truth we have only to go back as far as the White Paper of 1990 and the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which is now being totally erased? We are not in year zero; the buck stops with the Home Secretary.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend asks whether it would be fair to characterise the Home Secretary in that way. It may not be fair, but it would certainly be true.

Mr. Peter Butler: If the hon. Gentleman is right to claim that the present proposals reverse the Criminal Justice Act 1991, and he opposed that, why does he also oppose the reversal of it?

Mr. Straw: Well—[Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman is, I know, a difficult man, and I did not quite follow the logic of his question. What he should worry about more when he talks to his constituents is the fact that he too voted to cut compensation for victims, and also the fact that recorded crime in his constituency since 1979—not since year zero—has increased by 141 per cent., one of the largest increases anywhere in the country.

Mr. Sweeney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman. I need to turn to the other important White Paper, which the Secretary of State published today.
As I said, it is quite remarkable that, given the slackness of the parliamentary timetable and all the days and weeks that the Secretary of State could have chosen in which to publicise, to great effect for himself, the White Paper "On the Record" about the Government's proposals for access to criminal records, he chooses to do it today and hijack his speech about another White Paper, "Protecting the Public", on which he managed to spend only 10 minutes.
When the House, at the Opposition's instigation, debated the private security industry, there was widespread demand from Members on both sides for arrangements for access to criminal records to be reformed. It is clearly necessary for employers to be aware of the criminal records of those they seek to employ in positions of trust, and crucial that the greatest possible protection is available in respect of children. In the area of child sexual abuse, there is a conflict between the needs of children and the civil liberties of suspected abusers. In our judgment, where there is a serious risk to children, their needs must always prevail.
For those working outside such sensitive areas, we must ensure that any system balances the needs of employers, and through them the public, with the rehabilitation of offenders. As the Government said in their Green Paper on criminal records in 1993:
common sense suggests that an ex-offender with suitable work is less likely to reoffend than one who is unemployed".
We shall examine the White Paper very carefully to ensure that it achieves the proper balance.
As I said in an intervention on the Secretary of State, the White Paper is seriously deficient in its proposals for dealing with the private security industry. In its 1995 report, the Select Committee on Home Affairs was clear that the vetting of potential employees was not enough to protect the public from totally unregulated private patrols or other private security companies which
prey on the fears of vulnerable people.
The Government must accept the arguments of the police, the overwhelming majority of companies in the private security industry—they are desperate for proper regulation because of the way in which their reputations are besmirched by the crooks—the Home Affairs Committee and the Labour party, and legislate to regulate the industry.
I have here a copy of the Carlisle News and Star, which I understand circulates in the constituency of the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean).

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I never buy it.

Mr. Straw: The Minister would do better if he did buy it, because he might learn something.
An article in that paper is headed "'Gangster' is Security Man—City crook a security guard on homes site". The article talks about Aaron Giacopazzi, one of the city's best known criminals, who has been taken on by Lowther Construction to guard a building site. The deputy managing director of the company says in the article:
'"It isn't our normal policy to use convicted criminals.
The Government's proposals provide huge loopholes for people such as Mr. Aaron Giacopazzi. The security firm might be perfectly legitimate. If that were so, his record would be vetted and he would not be employed by it. But there is nothing to stop that man, who is a great entrepreneur and building a £1.5 million development with who knows whose money, setting up his own security firm. He would certainly not vet himself.

Mr. Eric Martlew: Does my hon. Friend realise that Mr. Giacopazzi has since been arrested on a drugs charge but that the company, being very generous, now employs his father? [Laughter.] And his godfather!

Mr. Straw: That makes our point very strongly.

Mr. Howard: What is the point?

Mr. Straw: The point is very simple. Members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which is chaired by the Home Secretary's very close friend, the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), unanimously recommended that the private security industry—employers as well as employees—should be properly regulated by statute. Ministers, because of their obsession with deregulation, have persistently refused to do so.
The other White Paper that we are debating today, "Protecting the Public", contains three principal proposals: for so-called "honesty in sentencing"; for indeterminate sentences for repeat rapists and perpetrators of serious violence; and for automatic determinate sentences for persistent burglars and drug dealers. I shall deal with each of those in turn.
As I have already made clear, we support the principle of honesty in sentencing. The public have a right to know what is being done on their behalf. On the question how the proposal should be put into practice, I have already suggested that courts should give details of the minimum and maximum period that could be served under the term they hand down, and the earliest release date. In that way, what is now called a four-year sentence would, in future, be described more correctly as a two to four-year sentence. Transparency would be introduced, without having to turn the rest of the system upside down.
The Home Secretary proposes a more complicated change to arrive at the same result, while asserting that he does not expect his proposals
to result in a general increase in the period of time that offenders serve in prison".
We can examine the details of the alternative proposals in Standing Committee if and when a crime Bill comes before the House during the rest of this Parliament.
It already appears—I should be glad if the Minister would deal with this in his reply—that the Secretary of State's preferred arrangement might have one perverse

effect, which is that some prisoners may be subject to supervision after their release for much less time than under the present regime.
We also support in principle the proposal for indeterminate sentences for repeat rapists and others convicted of serious sexual offences. Of all crimes, apart from homicide, serious sexual offences can do the greatest long-term harm to the victim, both psychological as well as physical. Those who offend often have a high propensity to reoffend, and, as I pointed out in a detailed paper on sentencing that I published in March, an official committee—the Butler committee—looked at the issue of serious sexual offenders 21 years ago and concluded that there should be available a system of indeterminate reviewable sentences for such repeat sexual offenders.
The Secretary of State proposes that all repeat rapists and serious sexual offenders should receive an indeterminate life sentence. Since "life" is not intended by the White Paper generally to mean life in those cases, there might be advantage in having a separate sentencing regime for those people, unless the court, for particular reasons, gave out a life sentence. That matter can be examined in Committee in due course.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Butler committee was saying that there should be mandatory reviewable life sentences? Does he not think it sufficient to give judges the power to sentence to life imprisonment and the encouragement of knowing that those sentences would be effective?

Mr. Straw: We have to disagree about this. The Butler committee recommended that there should be a system of indeterminate, reviewable sentences—

Mr. Carlile: Not mandatory.

Mr. Straw: No, I will come to that. The committee said that they should be available for first offences as well as for second or subsequent ones. As I recall—I have read the report—the committee said that there should be a presumption in favour of an automatic indeterminate sentence where there was a second conviction.
What we are proposing and what the Government are proposing for serious sex offenders amount to the same thing: that, because of the danger of reoffending, which must be patently apparent when someone has already offended twice, a decision to release the individual should be made only when it is safe to do so.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I have been listening to what the hon. Gentleman has been saying, which, as I understand it, is that he accepts the principle of honesty in sentencing and the principle that there should be indeterminate sentences for repeat offenders involved in serious sex offences. If that principle is right for England, why is the Labour party opposing it in Scotland?

Mr. Straw: Of all the people to ask that question it is the Secretary of State for Scotland. I have with me the Scottish Office White Paper dealing with crime and punishment. I have read this—it was only a cursory glance, and I am open to correction—but I cannot find


any reference to automatic minimum sentences for drug dealers and repeat burglars. Have I missed something? Perhaps the Secretary of State could tell me.

Mr. Forsyth: The question that I put to the hon. Gentleman was about the Labour party's policy—[Interruption.] I will happily deal with the hon. Gentleman's point in exchange for him answering my question. I asked about the Labour party's policy. If its policy is that the principle of honesty in sentencing is right and that the principle of indeterminate sentences for repeat offenders is right, why should that principle be different north of the border?
This is a fundamental issue, and I cannot for the life of me see why it should be different north and south of the border. As far as the Government are concerned, on both these matters, these principles apply throughout the United Kingdom.

Mr. Straw: I was right in the conclusions that I drew from a cursory reading of the White Paper. The huge inconsistency is not between our hon. Friends who represent Scotland and those of us who represent England and Wales; the inconsistency is between these two Secretaries of State. As far as I can see, the Secretary of State is making no proposals for automatic minimum sentences for drug dealers and for burglars.

Mr. Forsyth: I was listening to the hon. Gentleman's speech, and I was agreeing with him about the matter of principle. If he is saying that the Labour party accepts the principle of honesty in sentencing and the principle of mandatory sentences for repeat sex offenders, he is in the same position as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I. We agree on these matters. It is the Labour party that has split north and south of the border. Why are the principles on these matters different north and south of the border?

Mr. Straw: This is pretty desperate. I have offered the right hon. Gentleman two chances.
I have had the benefit of reading the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) in Scotland on Monday. He said:
Labour is committed to tough sentencing for those who commit serious crimes. We are committed, to progression in sentences and to a licence system for sex offenders."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 17 June 1996; c. 36.]
The Secretary of State may not have noticed, but there are two different legal systems—that in Scotland and that in England and Wales.

Mr. Forsyth: The principle.

Mr. Straw: If there is a principle, I have just read it out. The Secretary of State has signally failed to explain why there is a difference of principle—as there obviously is—between him and his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary when it comes to automatic minimum sentences for repeat burglars and drug dealers.
The proposals for indeterminate sentences for serious sexual offenders are acceptable to us, not only because they directly address the paramount need to protect the public but because the term actually served will be determined by reference to the nature of the offence and

of the offender. The judge will still be required to set a tariff proportionate to the seriousness of the offence. Thereafter, the offender will not be released unless and until the parole board is satisfied that it is safe to release them.
So justice, above all for the victim but also for the offender, is built into this system. These considerations mean that this proposal is wholly different in character and effect from the third of the Home Secretary's proposals, for automatic determinate minimum sentences of three years in the case of domestic burglars on their third conviction, and seven years for drug dealers on their third conviction.
In my response to the Home Secretary's statement on 3 April, I said:
We do not argue with
the Secretary of State's
purpose … for victims and offenders alike—that people who persistently burgle or deal in hard drugs
should
receive … tough, deterrent … sentences."—[Official Report, 3 April 1996; Vol. 275, c. 393.]
The issue is not whether such persistent hardened burglars or drug dealers should receive such tough deterrent sentences, but how that should be achieved.
The problem with the Secretary of State's proposals is that, the more they are exposed to scrutiny, the more it becomes clear that they will not work as he intends. It is a mark of how ill thought through was his original proposal that he has already made one fundamental change from what he told the Conservative party conference in October 1995. Then, at least what he said had the merit of clarity, however crude and impractical the policy might have turned out.
Then, in right hon. and learned Gentleman's desperation to upstage the Secretary of State for Defence in his appeal to the Tory right, the Home Secretary was emphatic. He told the party faithful:
I've got a simple answer to burglars and dealers in hard drugs who offend again and again and again. If you don't want the time, don't do the crime.
But where are we now? A mere two months later, the Home Secretary had to admit that such a wholly automatic slot-machine system of justice would produce manifest injustice.
So, by December, he had to concede, in an interview in The Law Society's Gazette, that the answer to these drug dealers and burglars would not be as simple as that which he had presented to the Tory party conference, and there would be an escape clause. The clarion call about time and crime had by then become, "If you don't want the time, don't do the crime—save where the courts exercise a discretion to waive the minimum sentences in exceptional cases."
Here we see the central element of the Home Secretary's proposals unravelling, because of the belated acknowledgement that they cannot apply in all cases. What is more, the escape clause to the simple answer that he told the Tory party conference he had has changed again twice. The White Paper shifted from the words that the right hon. and learned Gentleman used in the Law Society's Gazette interview, and now speaks of "genuinely exceptional cases"—as if the adverb "genuinely" adds any clarity to what he means.
Only last month, the Home Secretary's very close and noble Friend Lord Mackay, the Lord Chancellor, treating these proposals in the White Paper like a piece of stinking fish, said that the precise terms on which the exception will be framed would be a matter for Parliament to determine.
So where is the simple answer now; indeed, where is the complicated answer? The Secretary of State and his colleagues cannot even make up their minds about that. We await the Bill with interest. Who knows what its terms by then will be?
One of the Secretary of State's most trusted colleagues in the House of Commons is the hon. and learned Member for Burton, Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee. I am very sorry that he cannot be present today—perhaps this debate was arranged explicitly with that in mind—but, like other members of the Select Committee, he is in the United States examining American penal policy.
When the issue of minimum sentences was debated at length in the House in February 1991, the hon. and learned Gentleman made this wise observation:
I do not like minimum sentences. They reduce the discretion of the courts, and all who practice in or know anything about the courts realise that human life spans an enormous width and that there are many degrees of blameworthiness … Speeches calling for minimum sentences have always been resisted over the years. The Government have resisted the idea of going down this slippery slope, because if one case is allowed as an exception it becomes difficult to refuse other cases"—[Official Report, 20 February 1991; Vol. 186, c. 311–2.]
What a slippery slope it will be! This proposal from the Secretary of State will undoubtedly result in more guilty professional burglars and drug dealers walking free from court. In the United States, the jurisdictions with automatic determinate sentences are jammed up with not-guilty fights—two and a half times as many of them as where the courts have a discretion. More not guilty pleas mean more acquittals.
The Government's White Paper of 1990 said that such a system of minimum determinate sentences
would … result in more acquittals by juries with more guilty men and women going free unjustly as a result"—
a point repeated by the former Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), when he was a Minister of State at the Home Office.
Today, the Home Secretary quoted some research by an academic at Oxford. It is unusual to hear him quoting research by any academic, let alone one from his own constituency, but we shall leave that aside. He said that the research showed that the avoidance of prison was the greatest deterrent that any system could establish.
We do not need research from Oxford to tell us that. Those of us who have had dealings with criminals know only too well that, on the whole, they do not like being in prison. One of our major complaints about the chaos in to which the Conservatives have plunged the criminal justice system is that not enough serious criminals are being put in prison—

Dr. Robert Spink: Come off it.

Mr. Straw: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that, since 1979—year zero for the British public—the number of recorded crimes has doubled, while the number of people

convicted and cautioned for those crimes has dropped by 6 per cent., and the number convicted of any crime has dropped by 33 per cent.? No wonder people are up the wall about this Government's record and complacency.

Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the difficulty of securing convictions, why did he vote against our proposals to allow the courts to draw an inference from silence—proposals deliberately designed to increase the number of convictions of the guilty, which are having precisely that effect?

Mr. Straw: We shall take no lectures from the Secretary of State. He voted for the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which he now says makes a mockery of the sentencing system. If he reads the record, he will find that we suggested alternative, constructive proposals based on recommendations made by the royal commission on criminal justice which he and his predecessors established.
The simple fact is that nothing we have heard from the Secretary of State today or at any time since he made his proposals last October has challenged the wisdom of the conclusion reached by the Government in 1990—that automatic minimum determinate sentences would result in more guilty people walking free.
Then there is the issue of timing. What is clear from the White Paper is that the Secretary of State has been deserted by the Chancellor, himself a former Home Secretary, and by most of his other colleagues on this issue. Automatic minimum sentences for repeat burglars will add hugely to the prison population, which is already rising fast. Far from gaining the extra cash needed for this prison expansion, the Secretary of State got rolled over in the last public spending round; and the prison budget is to take a cut in each of the next three years.
Reading the small print of the White Paper, one finds that this much-heralded policy of gaoling repeat burglars will not come into force at all until October 1999. The relevant convictions will not start until after commencement of this part of the Act. So, on the most optimistic assumptions, a prolific burglar may not be affected by the proposal at least until the year 2000.
By now, that notorious clarion call about time and crime, with its "simple answer", should read: "If you don't want the time, don't do the crime—save where the court exercises its discretion to waive the minimum sentence in genuinely exceptional cases, and in any case not until the start of the next millennium." That is hardly what the public would call honest or straightforward.
The public cannot wait another four years for an effective sentencing system that ensures proper consistency and progression. We need a criminal justice system that is swift, efficient and consistent, and that ensures proper progression for all repeat offenders—not just drug dealers and domestic burglars.
The way to achieve that is, as Labour has proposed, by imposing a clear duty on the Court of Appeal to lay down clear guidance for all the main categories of offence, and to consult widely on draft proposals before they are made operational. Such a proposal would work; it would be just; it could be brought into operation swiftly—next year, not next century. It would properly protect the public.
It is significant that it is exactly this latter proposal which the Secretary of State for Scotland—I am not surprised that he has fled—is advancing in his White Paper for Scotland, in place of the proposals for automatic minimum sentences for repeat burglars and drug dealers.
It is the first duty of any Government to ensure that their citizens can leave their lives in freedom, free from fear and insecurity. In that first duty this Government have failed.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: No, I am coming to the end of my speech.
Britain today is a society disrupted and disfigured by crime and disorder, led by a Government who, on their own admission, have reduced the criminal justice system to a farce and a mockery. Under this Government, there is more crime, and more criminals are getting away with it. The British public need a criminal justice system that works, acting to prevent crime and its causes, dealing effectively with juvenile offenders, getting tough on criminal and anti-social neighbours, ensuring the proper protection of the public, giving effective backing to the police and real dignity to victims, and dealing effectively with persistent criminals.
Those are the answers to the epidemic of crime and disorder over which the Government have presided. The Secretary of State and his friends have had 17 years to get it right. They have failed. They have lost the trust of the British people. Where the Tories have failed in that first duty of Government, Labour will succeed.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I remind hon. Members that the 10-minute rule is now in operation.

Sir Peter Lloyd: The Labour party's amendment is one of brazen vacuity. The words
tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime
appear in the second half of the amendment—they are well-known words and they trip familiarly off the tongue. They would make the kind of slogan for which advertising men receive prizes from other advertising men at seaside resorts every so often. However, the words remain devoid of any real meaning—even though the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has ostensibly addressed himself to them for the past 35 minutes. They may not have a clear meaning, but they have a clear purpose: to ingratiate the Labour party with readers of the Daily Mail and The Guardian at one and the same time—the Labour party hopes that the readers of each paper will notice only the half meant for them.
The Government have gone the other way. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has the admirable virtues of clarity and courage but—as he just said; it is no secret—he has, alas, upset the judiciary to the extent that one noble Lord remarked that relations between judges and the Executive were now at their lowest ebb since James I.
The way that people on both sides of the argument have reacted to the other side of the argument has allowed the impression to get about that the row is little more than a top people's demarcation dispute. It is far more important than that. I believe that dissension between judges and the Home Secretary damages both sides, and the respect in

which the criminal justice system is held. It should have been avoided. The critics of the White Paper's sentencing proposals—I leave out the rest of the White Paper—have a powerful case. I agree with a number of the points that were made by the hon. Member for Blackburn.
I shall deal first with honesty in sentencing. There is a real problem for the public when they hear that a criminal who has been sentenced to three years is released after serving only 18 months. The judge and the professionals know that three years means 18 months in prison, plus any added days for misbehaviour, and 18 months at risk in the community—time that he will serve in prison if he commits another offence before the three years expires, in addition to the sentence for the new offence. The solution to this is simple—it does not need legislation. The judge should spell out in full what he and everyone else in the criminal justice world knows he is doing when he sentences, so that everyone else can know too.
By a strange irony, the change proposed by the Home Secretary will lead to different charges of sleight of hand. The Home Secretary wants the courts to take into account the change to serving full sentence so that there will be no general rise in the prison population. If the judges oblige, the prisoner who would have had three years will not serve three years as the public expects—he will still serve only 18 months, as the judge always knew he would. Moreover, because there will be less time after release when he will be at risk of serving the balance of the longer nominal sentence if he offends again, there will be less protection for the public.
Similarly, the loss of parole for more serious cases is not adequately replaced by earned remission. Earned remission has the merit of encouraging good co-operative behaviour in prison, which makes running a prison easier, but that is not quite the same thing as providing an incentive to prisoners to demonstrate that they will not be a danger again on their release and to make realistic preparations for that release. If the sentences remain the same, as the Home Secretary wishes, and parole disappears, the public will again be less well protected.
Secondly, where minimum sentences are concerned, I fear that the White Paper proposals are too sweeping. They will certainly lead to injustice. There are plenty of third-time burglars who should do more than three years and there are plenty of drug traffickers for whom seven years is too short—but there will be quite a few cases where such sentences will be visibly unjust and counter-productive.
For example, young drug addicts who sell small quantities of drugs to other addicts will get the same sentence as professional drug pushers. They will not come under the disclaimer in the White Paper because they have to be genuinely "exceptional" cases. They will not be genuinely "exceptional", and they will not be "unforeseeable". The same applies to opportunistic inadequates stealing from the homes of other people getting similar sentences as career housebreakers, as the Home Secretary just called them.
That will occur if the judiciary does not lengthen all sentences to maintain differentials. Perhaps, when my right hon. Friend the Minister of State winds up the debate, he will tell us about the Government's expectations in this regard. I fear that those minimum sentences will not do very much for deterrence, but that they will succeed in driving up the prison population.
Gaols will be filled with too many young drug addicts who ought not to be there and with the inadequate and immature for whom prison does not do much good, and does much harm if the education, training and diversionary programmes are not there. With a rising prison population and a reducing budget, such programmes will not be readily available. Perhaps the Minister will also refer to that in his winding-up speech.
Surely the right way to deal with sentences that are too short is to extend the prosecution's powers to appeal against them. The judiciary can do quite a lot more to achieve consistency, to demonstrate appropriate severity when needed and, most particularly, to explain to the public the principles on which it works in what is a complex and demanding task.
Thirdly, I am in complete sympathy with what the Home Secretary is seeking to do with mandatory life sentences for serious violent and sexual crimes. It cannot be right to release a violent offender back into the community when he is highly likely to attack again. In one sense, I would prefer to go further than the Home Secretary and find a means of detaining a violent first-time offender after the expiry of his determinate sentence if he shows signs of repeating it.
However, I do not feel that a mandatory life sentence is the right approach. It should be the unique and special penalty for the most serious of all crimes: murder. It is not right or wise to dilute it with a range of other very nasty but lesser crimes. The White Paper says that the judge will be responsible for the tariff and will presumably set one similar to, or perhaps below, the sentence that he would have given anyway. The public would quickly see that such a life sentence means even less than usual—so much for honesty in sentencing.
I would much prefer to see a new indeterminate sentence for violent or sex crimes that do not justify life but where the judge believes that there is a serious risk of violent reoffending. Previous violent offences would provide the strongest presumption for that. In the past, the judiciary may have underestimated public concern about violent reoffending. I hope that it will carefully consider the new sentencing powers that it needs to deal with violent reoffending more effectively.
Indeed, I hope that, in the next few months, while legislation is being prepared, there will be some serious rethinking all round—not least in the Home Office. If that happens, the White Paper will have had a positive effect on the safety of the public, and that, both the Home Secretary and the shadow spokesman have said, should be the overriding concern of penal policy.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Secretary of State for the Home Department has embarked on a futile task. He has lost all credibility on law and order—no one believes a word. The whole criminal system is collapsing. Hon. Members do not need to take my word for it—they need only visit a housing estate anywhere in the United Kingdom, talk to the people and listen to their expressions of anger. The people on the front line know precisely what is going on.
The whole legal system—legal aid, the arrangements for criminal investigations and the Crown Prosecution Service—is in deep trouble. Our constituency case loads

reflect the reality. A case in my constituency encapsulates the problems with the system. It reveals inadequacies in both police investigations and CPS prosecution decisions and it has implications for sentencing. I shall draw it to the attention of the House today.
The case concerns a woman, Elaine Steele, who lives in my constituency. She was charged with murder—the charge was subsequently amended to manslaughter—over the death of her 23-month-old baby. She was accused of shaking the child violently and causing her death. On the basis of a highly questionable police investigation and a number of medical reports, the CPS decided to prosecute. The case collapsed within hours of arriving in court.
Many medical reports were produced in the Elaine Steele case, all of which I have read. On the basis of those reports, it is hard to see how anyone in his right mind would wish to prosecute Elaine Steele. One professional involved described her as "very competent" at feeding her child, who had been born prematurely, and another said that she was "brilliant" with her child. A third professional said that she
provided for her daughter and endeavoured to give her daughter the more intensive care and attention that a premature baby would require. Mrs Steele appears to have coped with the various difficulties of being a single mother.
Many statements supported her and her ability to look after her child.
The House must ask how such a woman ended up in the criminal system on a manslaughter charge. Why was the state prepared to use precious resources pursuing an innocent woman through the courts? The answer is that all reasonable lines of inquiry were never pursued. In October 1992, after she and her boyfriend had been interviewed about the circumstances surrounding the death of her child, Elaine Steele was not told that the police were treating her as the prime suspect. During two hours of questioning, she was not afforded the protection offered by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. She was later charged with murder.
Following her remand on bail, information began to surface about the activities of her boy friend. He was interviewed subsequently by the police, and soon afterwards the charge against Elaine Steele was reduced to manslaughter. Repeated questions have been asked about what occurred during the interview with her former boyfriend and during the wider investigation. Cases such as this undermine the credibility of the entire legal system.
The police officers concerned are well respected. Nevertheless, they have been the subject of serious allegations as to the procedures that they adopted. There are allegations that an attempt was made to cover up a lack of police professionalism. It has been alleged that the police sought to change their evidence and that they failed to pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry.
Thankfully, a diligent Workington solicitor was not satisfied with the police investigation. He rejected the "shaking" theory as an explanation of the child's death. He sought the advice of pathologists throughout the country and, in the end, he was able to challenge the established medical interpretation of events. A professional who dealt with the case stated:
I do not think that anyone with a modicum of knowledge would ever believe that the Prosecution were not acting deliberately in a manner which was not investigative, which did not seek justice, which did not seek the truth, and merely sought a conviction. The


Prosecution even applied to amend the Indictment at the beginning of the case in a forlorn attempt to enhance their opportunities for convictions. The case fell at the first hurdle, (on the evidence of her boyfriend) … and by 1.30 in the afternoon she was acquitted.
The problem is that a poorly conducted investigation combined with an irresponsible decision to prosecute has had unfortunate repercussions for Elaine Steele. An able young reporter on the local evening newspaper submitted an accurate report of the prosecution's opening case. However, the case collapsed after the paper's lunchtime deadline. Sadly, the damage caused by that report of the prosecution's case affects Elaine Steele to this day.
The local evening newspaper—which is an excellent publication—is deeply concerned about what happened. It reported the collapse of the case and the subsequent clearing of the mother on the following day. The tragedy is that, when Elaine has been out in Workington, she has been verbally abused. That is deeply distressing both for her and for her hard-working and respectable family, who have also been ostracised by the community.
I asked another lawyer, who was unconnected with the case, to review the papers. I shall quote—with the names removed—what he said about the investigation. He stated:
There are a number of aspects of the case which cause me concern. The Police sought to entrap a distraught mother by avoiding the requirements of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. The Police subsequently tried to brush that particular episode under the carpet by blaming a typist"—

Mr. Sweeney: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance as to whether the hon. Gentleman's speech bears any relation to the matter that we are supposed to be discussing—sentencing.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will explain how his speech relates to the debate, which is fairly broad.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I know that the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) has not been in the House for very long, but I remind him that this is the highest court in the land. Debates such as this provide the opportunity to raise issues in Parliament. I hope that I have not lost time through that intervention.
The lawyer continued:
The Police subsequently tried to brush that particular episode under the carpet by blaming a typist for making a typing error and supplying two further statements of the two Detective Constables involved. The Police agreed to that typist being interviewed, on behalf of Elaine's solicitor, although a Detective Chief Inspector sat through the interview. It was he however who refused a further interview with the typist when it became apparent that she had more to say.
It is against all normal custom in criminal investigations for an officer who is involved in the case to be present at such an interview let alone make the decision that there should not be a further interview.
Many strong words have been uttered during this affair, but one must read the evidence—particularly the statements—to realise why people have such strong opinions about the case. The truth is that Mrs. Elaine Steele had nothing at all to do with the death of her child: she is totally innocent. The court found her innocent and her friends know that she is innocent. The person who should have been interviewed in depth about what happened was never properly interviewed. Elaine Steele is the victim of a failing system.
I feel very strongly that an injustice has been done. Elaine Steele may not have been sentenced by the court, but she has certainly been sentenced by some in the community. It was not sufficient to find her innocent in a court of law. She is the victim of a poorly conducted police investigation and of a stupid decision to prosecute by the Crown Prosecution Service. As a result, and due to some difficult publicity, she feels rejected in her own community.
I ask the people of Workington—particularly those who live in the local community—to look into their hearts and to realise that the injustice must end. I ask them to support Elaine Steele with warmth and with friendship. It cannot be right for an innocent person to be regarded as guilty and to be victimised after all that she has suffered.

Mr. Peter Butler: There is some agreement on both sides of the House that there are flaws in the Criminal Justice Act 1991. I, together with many of my colleagues, came to the House determined to reverse those injustices. Apart from the unjust and unworkable unit fines system, which quickly brought the criminal justice system into disrepute, the Act contained two other major flaws. The first was the argument in section 1 that people could be sentenced for up to two offences and no more, no matter how many they had committed; and the second was the requirement that previous convictions and failure to respond to previous sentences must be ignored, so that every offender was treated as a first-time offender for sentencing purposes. Both provisions were palpably absurd.
Although the present Parliament has repealed those sections properly and promptly, it sometimes seems as though too many sentencers wish to apply the principles that were embodied in the Act. How else can one explain the statistic that, in the Crown court in 1993–94, those convicted on a first offence of burglary of a dwelling received an average sentence of 16 months' imprisonment, while those who were convicted of their seventh or subsequent offence of burglary of a dwelling received only three months more on average?
Some 28 per cent. of those convicted in a Crown court of a seventh or subsequent burglary of a dwelling received a sentence which did not involve imprisonment. For magistrates courts, the figure was 61 per cent. So someone being tried in a magistrates court for a seventh, 10th or 30th burglary of a dwelling house was 60 per cent. likely not to go to prison and nearly 30 per cent. likely not to go to prison if tried in a Crown court. That is absurd, set against the background of a maximum sentence of 14 years for that offence.
The criminal justice system is there not to serve the voluntary offender but to protect the involuntary victim. I share the objective of the sections of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 that I mentioned, to the extent that the intention of those sections was to reduce the prison population, but I want to reduce the prison population by having fewer people commit crimes, not by leaving in the community those individuals who want to rob, burgle, attack, steal from and terrorise that community.
I shall give one example of the effect of prior legislation. A constituent suffered an unprovoked attack by a man armed with a knife. The attacker was sent to prison. In the interim period before he was convicted, he


had played every trick in the book—many hon. Members are well aware of them—to delay the day of reckoning and to serve his time on remand. The result was that, on the first weekend after his conviction and sentence, my constituent saw her attacker walking up the street in which she lived. She fled inside, locked the door and rang the police to say that he had escaped. It turned out that he had not escaped but was on weekend leave. That is what I mean by terror, and my constituent felt terror in that instance.
One of the excellent proposals tucked away inside the document that we should be debating this afternoon is a change that means that the judge will have to specify the date on which a sentence starts to run and may disregard for that purpose the time spent on remand that is due to the defendant's manipulation of the system. That reform is long overdue and welcome. It will help to reduce the terror that those people can bring to law-abiding members of the community.
We must try to avoid the trap of mentioning, for example,
a second serious violent or sexual offence
or
a third or subsequent burglary of a dwelling
only to forget about such offences thereafter and discuss only policy and criminological theories. We must remember that that is the standard structure of a speech in mitigation, the objective of which is to minimise awareness of the offence, let alone its effect on the victim. It does not bode well for us if we fall into that trap. We owe a duty to our constituents to protect them, and our starting point must be to remember the effect on them of such serious crimes. Our duty is prevent them from becoming victims, not to accept that they might become victims and then to deal with offenders.
The public believe, rightly, that more could be done to prevent crime and that what has been done has not prevented dangerous criminals from being released back on to the streets, even in circumstances in which criminologists, probation officers and prison officers are convinced that those criminals will offend again; they will seek new victims whose lives could and should have been spared such tragic interference.
I agree with the Home Secretary and the White Paper that automatic early release enrages victims. The current system does not provide any method to ensure that criminals known still to be a threat can be detained. I therefore welcome the proposal that earned remission, and earned remission only, can reduce the sentence. Good behaviour will no longer be assumed but will have to be demonstrated.
Conservative Members want to reduce the number of offenders and that view must be shared by all right hon. and hon. Members. That will mean fewer people to punish, but the measure of success is not the number of criminals: it is reductions in the number of victims. That is usually translated to mean a reduction in the number of offences, but that is the only point on which a criminal justice system can claim success or be accused of failure. To reduce the number of victims, it is necessary to deter offenders from choosing to offend. That is to state the obvious, but the obvious is always worth stating in the House, as elsewhere.
I am pleased to see that prevention of crime and effective policing are the largest sections in the document. In some ways, even in most ways perhaps, they are the most important sections. Let us be clear that the main purpose of sentencing is the prevention of further crime. The person most likely to offend is the one who has demonstrated his willingness so to do in the past. He must be persuaded to make a different choice in future, but—this is one of the premises of the proposals—if he will not allow himself to be so persuaded, society is justified in securing its safety by removing his liberty and his opportunity to offend again.
Too often, sentences do not seem to serve the public adequately. It is the public whom sentences should serve, not the criminal justice system or those employed by it. In my judgment, mandatory minimum sentences have been proven to work, and I pray in aid the mandatory minimum disqualification period in offences of driving under the influence of excess alcohol. That has been an effective deterrent to the dangerous practice of driving after drinking too much, although it is, of course, subject to an exceptional circumstances exemption. The fact remains that people do not drink and drive, because they know that, if caught, they will lose their driving licence. The change from the possible loss of one's licence to a mandatory loss by law was marked by a significant reduction in such offences, which has continued. Therefore, the mandatory minimum sentence is not just theory; it has been proven to work in practice.
Opponents claim that the proposals constitute an attempt by the executive to usurp the power of the judiciary, to take power away from judges and to give it to politicians. That is at best a false, simplistic argument and it is also wrong. To expose that, I shall make two brief points. First, we should ask from where the judges' power comes. Apart from some vestigial common law powers, their power comes from the people by way of Acts passed in the House. They have no other powers. Why would it be interference to prescribe a minimum sentence when it is not interference to prescribe a maximum sentence? I would be happier to hear judges complain about being restricted by a 14-year maximum sentence for repeat burglars who enter people's houses than to hear them complain about a proposed three-year minimum sentence. If it is interference to propose a minimum, it must also logically be interference to propose a maximum.
Secondly, let us follow the judges' argument to its logical conclusion. If it would be wrong to fetter a judge's discretion through mandatory minimum sentences, the same argument must apply to anything that fetters that discretion. That is the path that leads to the sentences for all offences being described as "such sentence as the judge considers appropriate in all the circumstances of the case", or words to that effect. That is the inevitable conclusion of that approach. I do not think that that is a reasonable proposition and we should not be persuaded to accept the first step towards it.
I do not accept the argument, which is always brought out of retirement and dusted down on such occasions, that the issue is not the sentence but the probability of arrest and conviction. That is sophistry. A 100 per cent. certainty of being fined 1p would deter nobody, nor would a 1 per cent. chance of imprisonment for life deter many. There must be a balance and, arguably, the lower the likelihood of conviction, the harsher the prospective sentence needs


to be to deter. We are beginning to see a rise in the likelihood of conviction and we must couple that with proper minimum sentences.
The Government's proposals are a means to ensure that the most dangerous criminals are not let back out on to the streets and that criminal behaviour is deterred through balanced, well-defined punishments that carry great certainty. That will further restore the confidence of a public fed up with crime and the morale of police officers tired of often working in vain.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Alex Carlile: The speech by the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) should be required reading in the Home Office. It was an excellent critique of the Government's proposals. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's experience in the Home Office and what he has said today will be considered fully by the Government before they introduce any legislative proposals.
The White Paper "On the Record", published this afternoon, deals with access to criminal records. Broadly speaking, I and my party would support proposals that would ensure that employers and voluntary agencies, in appropriate circumstances, can have access to criminal records if they are relevant to the employment in question. However, in appendix B of the White Paper there is a new piece of theory which rings alarm bells and, I suspect, will be the subject of much criticism. It would reduce acquittals to the status of unproved convictions and would enable information to be given to employers, even about an acquittal, on the basis of the opinion of police officers.
I say to the Minister, partly on the basis of my 26 years of experience at the Bar, that police officers' opinions are often extremely reliable, but they are sometimes extremely unreliable. It would be an outrage to introduce a power to disclose an acquittal as information relevant to someone's employment unless a counter-balance were introduced to enable the subject to challenge the disclosure of that information. Without that counter-balance, we would be proceeding down a slippery slope where rumour came to have the force of law. That would not be acceptable.
I make two preliminary points on the main substance of the debate, one as a question and the other as a statistic. First, the question: how do the Home Secretary and the Minister of State account for the fact that, in 1991, contrary to the advice of the judges, they supported proposals that were designed to secure that fewer and fewer people went to prison, when today they support proposals that are designed to secure that more and more people go to prison? The House is entitled to logical explanation, if one be available, which I doubt, of that change of mind.
As an adjunct to my question, I ask the Minister to tell the House honestly and for the first time that the Government are now asking judges to pass shorter sentences. Is that not right? If there is not to be a significant increase in the prison population, as I think the right hon. Member for Fareham was implying, it is inevitable that judges will have to pass shorter sentences.
If they do, by doing the will of the Government they will be passing shorter sentences for burglary, robbery and offences of actual bodily harm.

Mr. Butler: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Carlile: It is a short debate and I shall not give way. There is not much time.
Is it not a fact that the Government intend judges to pass shorter sentences? Is that the way in which they intend to send out the message that they will deal with crime?
The fact to which I wish to draw to the attention of Ministers—it is intended to deal with the canard that the Government can claim credit for the reduction in reported crime—is that most crime is committed by young men aged between 13 and 25. That is statistically proven. In the past 20 years, there has been a 13.6 per cent. reduction in the proportion of young men under 25 in the population. It would therefore be expected in the ordinary way that there would be a reduction in reported crime for that very reason alone. Let us lay the ghost of any credit that the Government can claim for a reduction in reported crime. The answer lies in a demographic fact.
Following my intervention, the Home Secretary offered to write to me on the reduction in reported crime. I look forward to receiving his letter. I shall be interested to examine the Home Office research that he claims to form the basis of what he is saying. I do not believe that such research exists. Having mentioned Home Office research, I express my sympathy for the high-quality research department within the Home Office. It used to be used as the locus classicus for legislative change in criminal justice. It is now the last place the Home Secretary looks for changes in criminal justice policy, despite the fact that the department continues to produce research of the highest quality.
The Home Secretary claims that prison works. It works as a cupboard in which we put people for a period so that they cannot commit crime. For the most part that is true, and self-evidently so. But surely prison really works only if, as a result of imprisonment, those who have been incarcerated do not repeat crime after release.
Young men commit small burglaries to buy drugs. Perhaps they buy drugs for less than £100. They share them out among their friends, and thus they are suppliers. They then commit another small burglary to obtain drugs. Again, they share them out among their friends. Next time, it is then three and out. As the right hon. Member for Fareham said, that will cause manifest injustice. What on earth is the interest—[Interruption.] I wish that the parliamentary private secretary, or whatever the hon. Gentleman is, would stop grunting behind the Minister of State.
If there is to be manifest injustice, what on earth is the Government's interest in introducing minimum sentences? Judges can, and do, pass severe sentences for serious crime. If the Government think that judges are not passing sufficiently severe sentences for serious crimes, it is open to the Attorney-General to appeal to the Court of Appeal against those sentences. I would be the first to concede that, because the prosecution's right of appeal has been exercised carefully and responsibly, it has worked reasonably well since its introduction.
It is proposed that there should be mandatory life sentences for offences other than homicide. I face with terror, as do many others, including Lord Taylor of Gosforth, the former Lord Chief Justice, the consequences of mandatory life sentences for rape. What will happen? I ask Ministers to listen, which they failed to do in 1991. Their failure to listen caused them to have to unwrap the 1991 legislation and change it.
I beg Ministers to listen for once to people who hear evidence in the criminal courts and who sentence people—in other words, the judges. Ministers should listen for once to those of us who in practice have to deal with cases in the criminal courts, whether as prosecutors, defenders or police officers. Many police officers who carry out the real inquiries do not support the Government. The same can be said of probation officers and, especially, the families of victims of crime.
I shall tell the Minister of State what will happen if mandatory life sentences are introduced for rape. People will be murdered because offenders will know that, if they are caught, they will be sentenced to life imprisonment for rape in any event. The Minister of State shakes his head. He does so against a weight of authority, which includes the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Donaldson, and Lord Justice Rose, whose practice was not in esoteric areas of the law. Lord Justice Rose, as he now is, came from Manchester to the High Court and the Court of Appeal. He has applied a wealth of practical experience. The Minister shakes his head against almost every criminologist in the country and, I believe, against the views of the researchers within his Department.

Mr. Maclean: rose—

Mr. Carlile: I shall give way briefly.

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I merely wish to say that I have the weight of evidence from the Home Office research department on my side when I shake my head in response to the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument.

Mr. Carlile: The right hon. Gentleman may claim that there is some evidence on his side. I should like to see it. I do not understand how the right hon. Gentleman can claim to have evidence on his side that overwhelms Lord Taylor, Lord Justice Rose, David Faulkner and all the other authoritative figures who have ranged themselves against the Government's proposals. If the right hon. Gentleman goes to Oxford university, which the Government hold so dear, and listens to the criminologists there, including David Faulkner, Sir Stephen Tumim and Roger Hood—there is a bevy of them—they will tell him that what the Government are saying about minimum sentences, and especially mandatory life sentences, is utter and absolute nonsense.
Prison works? It works as a way of paying builders for building prisons. That is the only way in which it works. Are the Government, who reduced the prison budget by 13 per cent., making prison work? They removed every probation officer from our prisons. Is that making prison work? They are cutting prison education, which enables

young men and women who are illiterate when they enter prison to leave literate and able to obtain jobs. Is that the Government making prison work?
In taking the actions to which I have referred, the Government, at the same time, are proposing to spend between £600 million and £1 billion on creating new lock-ups so that we can have a far larger prison population than ever before. The Minister should take account of the experience of the United States, where they imprison far more people than we do. He will find that prison does not work there. The prison population of the United States, which, proportionally, is far in excess of ours, has not decreased. Violent crime in the United States has continued to increase. The Government seem to rely on an American experience that is a failure.
I shall say a few words about boot camps. The Minister cites evidence from the Home Office, but I suggest that he look at the Home Office research on what happened during the unhappy period of the short sharp shock. Two things happened: one group of prisoners were bullied; the other group took it like the easy medicine it was for fit young men, who came out more fit to commit more crime of the sort that they had committed before they went in.
The truth is that the Government have not begun to tackle the reasons why young people commit crime. I saw a sentence in a Home Office press release about the possible introduction of drug courts. That is the sort of idea that the Government should consider seriously and to which they should devote their attention—breaking the spiral of drug misuse that turns young people in this country to crime.
The Government should pay more attention to the prevention of crime by ensuring that hard messages are delivered to schools and colleges by police officers and others who understand and can explain the consequences of offending, but we see little about that. It is time the Government concentrated on the reasons why people commit crime, and did not simply devote themselves to the rhetoric of retribution. I fear that the Government are doing a grave disservice to this country by misrepresenting the criminal justice issues in the rhetoric of retribution.
A democratic representative in the United States, Mr. Bobby Scott, was quoted in The Economist last week as saying:
When you call for more incarceration, you do not have to explain yourself; when you argue for effective alternatives, you do.
The Government have simply decided that they can profit electorally from that simple message. The Government cannot explain themselves; but those of us who believe in sensible, constructive sentencing that will reduce the incidence of criminal behaviour believe that we can—and we shall not fear to criticise the Government's simplistic approach before the electorate at the appropriate time.

Mr. Walter Sweeney: I welcome the Government's proposal to abolish automatic early release from prison. Hon. Members who have experience of representing defendants in criminal proceedings will be aware that everyone involved in the court system—particularly old lags who have done time before—make an immediate mental calculation when the sentence is handed down of what it really means after allowing for


the appropriate discount. Some people would argue that we already have realism in sentencing, because even the general public know enough about the law to know that an automatic discount applies.
I believe that the present system brings the law into disrepute. The public are entitled to know that the sentence when passed is the sentence that will be served, subject to a small discount that will have to be earned through good behaviour. It is in the interests of the smooth running of prisons and of rehabilitation that inmates should have an incentive to maintain good behaviour throughout their sentence to maximise the discount earned.
There has been speculation about whether honesty in sentencing would lead to a big increase in the prison population. Judges will, of course, be able to reduce the sentence to achieve the intended net objective. If judges choose not to reduce the nominal sentence passed, on the face of it the prison population will increase, but there would be an increased deterrent effect if effective sentences were seen to be longer. That would, I hope, reduce the number of defendants coming before the courts.
I warmly welcome the proposal to introduce automatic life sentences for people over 18 convicted for a second time of a serious sexual or violent offence. Such a measure would ensure that it is possible to prevent such offenders, who remain a danger to the public, from being released. The need for such a measure is demonstrated by statistics that show that 10 per cent. of offenders released after serving a sentence for serious sexual or violent offences go on to commit similar terrible offences again.
I also welcome the proposal that persistent dealers in hard drugs should receive an automatic minimum prison sentence of seven years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) was worried that this might involve people who were not serious offenders receiving a mandatory seven-year sentence. My answer to that is that they should think of that before they commit the offence. The imposition of such a significant minimum sentence would ensure that offenders received their just desserts, particularly the most serious offenders, who, morally, should receive the death penalty or, failing that, a life sentence for the terrible despair, pain and loss of life that they produce in exchange for personal gain.
The proposed automatic minimum prison sentences for persistent domestic burglars are also welcome. It is outrageous that a professional burglar convicted of seven or more burglaries spends little more time inside than they would for a first conviction. Any professional criminal weighs up two things in deciding whether to commit a particular offence: first, the risk of getting caught; secondly, the severity, or otherwise, of the likely sentence.
So far as certainty of detection is concerned, the Government have rightly increased resources for the police. In my constituency, some two dozen extra police officers have been appointed in the past few months—and very necessary they are, too. The police are targeting known and persistent burglars and are increasing detection rates. The success of Operation Bumblebee, launched by the Metropolitan police in 1991, has been emulated by other forces. As every person with any common sense knows, it is no good catching criminals unless they are convicted and given an appropriately severe sentence. A

minimum sentence of three years for persistent burglars will help to persuade them that crime does not pay and that they would be better off earning an honest living.
There are, of course, do-gooders on the Opposition Benches who question the value of prison sentences. In the past three and a half years, the prison population has risen by 25 per cent. and crime has fallen by 8.5 per cent. In my opinion, that is no coincidence. In 1995, 468,000 fewer crimes were recorded in England and Wales than in 1994—the largest ever continuous fall in the number of annually recorded crimes. When criminals are behind bars, they cannot commit crimes against the general public. About two thirds of all crimes are committed by one fifth of offenders, so it is common sense that the number of crimes falls when persistent offenders are out of circulation. Home Office research suggests that between three and 13 offences could be prevented when each domestic burglar is imprisoned for a year rather than given a community sentence.
Mandatory sentences are nothing new. They already exist, as my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) pointed out, for drink-driving. Who can doubt that it is the certainty of losing their licence if caught and convicted that has deterred many people from drinking and driving?
Prison sentences do not only prevent offences; they deter offenders. The police and the public clearly believe that. As the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, Mr. Jim Sharples, said on BBC Radio 4's "Today" programme on 14 October 1995:
people who commit serious offences should expect long custodial sentences. Minimum sentences do have a role in our view in playing a part in deterrence".
Recent research has also shown that prison has a deterrent effect. For example, Burnett's 1992 study, which was based on interviews with prisoners, found that, for the whole sample, avoidance of imprisonment was the most frequently mentioned reason for not wanting to reoffend.
Those who argue against prison sentences say that they make bad people worse. The facts do not bear that out. The latest reconviction rates, published in February 1996, show that 51 per cent. of prisoners reoffended within two years of release, compared with 55 per cent. of those who were given community service orders. Given that offenders sent to prison are higher up the tariff than offenders given community service, prison is even more successful than those bald figures suggest.
It has been suggested in some quarters that it is somehow wrong to risk upsetting judges by creating minimum sentences. There is nothing wrong with Parliament legislating to impose maximum, minimum or mandatory sentences. Indeed, Parliament would be failing in its duty if it did not continue to address the issue of excessively lenient sentences.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Ministers should find it enlightening and humbling to read the record of a debate that took place in the other place on 23 May. Indeed, that debate is important to all of us, including the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney). In that unprecedented debate, the Lord Chief Justice issued a comprehensive critique of the Government's proposal. What was unprecedented was the fact that a direct criticism of the Home Secretary was


made by the most senior lawyers in the country and by former Home Office Ministers. Indeed, a former Home Office Minister, the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), spoke today. That should give the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan and others at least cause for reflection and consideration. They should take account of the words of those who have had to make decisions about individuals and policy in connection with a very complex issue.
In the other place, there was also a comprehensive mauling of the way in which the Home Secretary had used statistics in the White Paper, making them less and less credible. Phrases such as "flimsy and dubious evidence", "partial and tainted", "shallow and untested" and "highly misleading" were used by figures such as Lord Donaldson and the Lord Chief Justice. That should give the Home Secretary and other Home Office Ministers cause to reflect.
Rather in the style of Mark Antony, those who spoke in that debate said that they were not aiming directly at the Home Secretary's bona fides, because the Home Secretary was an honourable man. The message was clear, however: everyone considered the White Paper on sentencing to be a highly partisan exercise, unrelated to the needs of criminal justice. The Home Secretary has, uniquely, managed to array against him and his policies the senior judges in the country and the great majority of practitioners.
The Home Secretary may say that that does not matter: that the editorial writers of the tabloids are on his side, and that he is confident that public opinion—or, perhaps, the electorate—is also on his side. It is true that the public are anxious about the doubling of crime over the past few years and the decline in law and order, but it is wrong for politicians, particularly Home Secretaries, to pander to that opinion, pretending that they have the answers and implying that judges cannot be trusted to impose the appropriate sentences.
Although the immediate response of many individuals—the person in the street—is "Yes, sentences should be more severe," that was not reflected in the only major test involving people who had followed cases through and observed them at first hand. I refer to the research of Professor Zander, carried out for the Runciman commission. Of nearly 10,000 jurors—average citizens—only 15 per cent. thought that sentences in cases that they had heard should have been more severe and were surprised that they had not been.
Why is such a wide array of criminal justice practitioners so profoundly hostile to the Home Secretary, his proposals and his practice? Partly because they see the White Paper as just another partisan initiative from this most political of Home Secretaries. He is all too ready, for example, to rely on examples from the United States, as if that country were a paragon of success in criminal justice. We know that, per head of population, the United States imprisons far more people than any other developed country.
The practitioners see the proposals as part of an election manifesto, or as a man trap for the Opposition, rather than a serious attempt to deal with real problems. They know that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) pointed out—the proposals cannot come into

effect until the year 2000, although the Home Secretary could deal with the problem immediately if he wanted to, either by revamping the means of referral to the Court of Appeal's criminal division or by way of a sentencing council. They cannot see how the prison population will not escalate—and explode—as a result of the Home Secretary's proposals, unless judges are in effect told to pronounce shorter sentences, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said in his excellent speech.
The practitioners consider the proposals unnecessary, because judges now have the power—in rape cases, for example—to impose life sentences. Moreover, there can be a referral by the Attorney-General in respect of lenient sentences. Above all, those with experience of the criminal justice system see the proposals as unjust, as an affront to basic constitutional principles and as removing judges' discretion to do justice in individual cases.
The right hon. Member for Fareham gave a good example in respect of young people in drug cases. Burglaries are another instance. A young man may go into the private area of a public house and take an ashtray as a first offence; he may put his arm through a window—which is technically a burglary—as a second offence; and he may do something relatively minor as a third offence. In effect, the judge has no discretion in cases of that kind.
We need consistency and openness in sentencing. I would agree with the introduction of sentencing bands, so that a judge could make it clear what a sentence meant in practice—although, as has been pointed out, most criminals can estimate what a sentence will mean in their case. However, we should pay attention to the anxieties expressed by the public. The key role of the criminal justice system is to protect the public—that should always be the starting point—but the policy makers should then act, not in a partisan spirit, and not as if they were delivering yet another speech to their party conference, but after cool appraisal and on the basis of respectable research that is accepted in the profession as a whole.
Senior judges, including the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Donaldson, cast clear aspersions on the validity of the research on which the White Paper was founded. Policy makers should also listen carefully, and with respect, to practitioners who know the problem of applying complex considerations to the infinite variety of individual cases.

Mr. Tim Yeo: The voice of what might be described as the producer lobby in the criminal justice system has been well aired this evening, not only by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) but by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). I believe that we have allowed policy to be influenced excessively by that producer lobby, in the sphere of criminal justice as in so many others. It is the belief that the views of judges, lawyers and others who derive their living from administering or working in the criminal justice system should always hold sway over the general public's views that put the country in the terrible state that it was in in 1979.
This is the first occasion on which I have spoken in a criminal justice debate. I do so because it is impossible to ignore the profound concern in my constituency about the level of crime—a concern that exists despite the welcome


fall that has taken place over the past couple of years. As we know, it is not just the level of crime but the fear of crime that blights the quality of life, and many more years of falling crime rates will be needed before that fear is removed.
Having represented a largely rural seat for 13 years, I am conscious that the fear of crime has increased substantially in the countryside. There is a strong and widely held perception that police resources, especially manpower, are targeted on towns, and that crime prevention measures such as closed-circuit television are most effective in urban areas. The facts may tell a slightly different story, but perceptions are important, and they take a long time to change.
On behalf of all my constituents I give the warmest possible welcome to the proposals—especially the sentencing proposals—in the White Paper, "Protecting the Public". In particular, my constituent, Martin Crawshay, and his colleagues on South Suffolk law and order committee, with whom I have worked closely for several years, are glad that some of the concerns that were voiced at our meeting last year with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State have been listened to.
Let me express my appreciation of the much-improved Home Office funding of Suffolk police for 1996–97. I observed their excellent and effective work at first hand on night patrol a few weeks ago with officers from Sudbury, under the command of Inspector Mark Cordell.
Well-resourced police, backed up by co-operative and law-abiding members of the public, are only part of a successful strategy to combat crime. We also needs courts whose powers and procedures facilitate rather than impede justice. Once convictions have been obtained, we need sentences that deter criminals and protect the public.
It is his approach to sentencing policy for which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary deserves particular congratulation. Almost single-handedly, he has reversed the drift of post-war penal policy. For far too long, sentencing policy has appeared to be driven by the interests of criminals, by the capacity of the prison system or by cherished experiments of prison and penal reformers—by anything except the interests of the law-abiding citizen.
The title of the White Paper—"Protecting the Public"—is a welcome departure from past thinking. It acknowledges that one of the most basic duties of the Government is the protection of their citizens. I should like to tell my right hon. and learned Friend that, since some of his proposals on sentencing have come under attack by senior judges and other representatives of the producer lobby, I have not met a constituent of any age, occupation or background who agrees with the judges' criticisms or disagrees with my right hon. and learned Friend's approach. For the first time for several generations, it appears that common sense rather than wishful and woolly idealism is to be the basis of our policy.
Rising crime figures—happily, at least partially reversed but still far too high—suggest that previous sentencing policy provided neither a deterrent to criminals nor protection for the public. It was, and is, high time for an alternative approach that may or may not be successful. I listened carefully to the reservations of my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd). We do not know whether the new approach will succeed, but, my goodness, it is at least worth a try, given the proven and complete failure of the system in the last half century.
Where convictions of persistent or violent offenders are followed by longer sentences, at least the criminals cannot reoffend while they are in prison. A few more citizens may sleep a little more safely in their beds. Indeed, the only criticism that I have heard of the White Paper's proposals that has any resonance is that they were not introduced sooner. It is a matter of surprise and regret that it has taken 17 years of a Conservative Government to introduce this element of common sense into sentencing policy.
I have a few constituents, however, who, despite all their experience, are influenced by opinion polls, and for that reason they are interested in the Labour party's approach to the subject. They will have listened in vain today, as on many other occasions when the subject has been debated, for any expression of regret by the Labour party for its opposition in the House to all the measures taken over many years designed to help the police to track offenders and to maintain order. They will have listened in vain for any expression of regret from the Labour party for its opposition to measures that improved court procedures so that guilty people could be brought to book. They will have listened in vain for any expression of regret by the Labour party for its resistance to measures designed to introduce stiffer sentences.
Fortunately, there is still time for the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), to say, "We in the Labour party were wrong year after year to oppose all these measures. We now apologise to people whose homes have been burgled or who have suffered physical violence at the hands of criminals who might have been behind bars if our delaying tactics in the House had not prevented the swifter passage of Conservative legislation on to the statute book."
There is still time for the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth to say that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), whose approach to sentencing when shadow Home Secretary was indistinguishable in every respect from old Labour, was as wrong on that issue as he was on privatisation, industrial relations reform, tax, public spending and the nuclear deterrent throughout his political career.
Now, at the eleventh hour, in a shameless and unprincipled opportunist attempt to win office, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield claims to believe the opposite of what he argued for over many years—the opposite of what most Labour Members and most members of the shadow Cabinet secretly, or not so secretly, argue for.
There is still time for the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth to tell my constituents—who will be very interested to hear him; if he remains silent, they will draw their own conclusion—that all the past policies of the Labour party were wholly wrong, and to apologise for them. If he fails to do so, the House will know that nothing has changed and that Labour party policy remains to shed crocodile tears over the plight of the victims of crime while resolutely refusing to support measures likely to make life tougher for the criminal.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: I welcome the proposals of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, and I know that many of my constituents and many people throughout our great county of Yorkshire will join me in that welcome.
We now have the toughest Home Secretary and Home Office Ministers that we have had for many years. That is widely welcomed, certainly outside the House, if not in the Chamber this evening. Many people in the United Kingdom want to see the White Paper's tougher measures put into operation as quickly as possible.
The Government have a duty to protect their citizens and to ensure that they can go about their normal lawful business and not be locked up in their homes when criminals are on the loose. Criminals should be locked up in prison, away from decent, law-abiding people.
We have heard much about young people on our streets—even young people under 10. What about parents? No one has mentioned the responsibility of parents to look after their young people, particularly those under 10, who should not be on the streets in the evening.
The punishment should always fit the crime, and persistent serious violent criminals should get stiff sentences. Early release should not be automatic; it should be earned, and I am pleased to see that that is now proposed. Prisons work—of course they work, because they keep people locked up, and when they are locked up, they are not committing more crime.
We have heard much about what Parliament and the Home Secretary should or should not do in making laws. Parliament makes laws, the judiciary implement them, and from time to time there will be discussion between the two. Offenders sentenced to under four years in prison are released once they have served half their sentence, and that cannot be right. Such early release enrages victims and their families, as many hon. Members will understand.
In 1994, 217 offenders were convicted of a second serious sexual or violent crime such as rape or attempted murder. All could have been given a life sentence, but only 10 were. Unless they get a life sentence, they must be released once they have served two thirds of their sentence, even if it is well known that they are still a danger to the public.
Under the Government's proposals, anyone aged 18 or over who is convicted of a serious sexual or violent offence for the second time will automatically get a life sentence. I have listened to what many of the professionals in the House have said about that, but I believe that it is right. Such second offenders would be released only when they no longer posed a danger to the public.
In such cases, the trial judge will determine the minimum sentence to be served by way of retribution and deterrence. The parole board can then decide whether it is safe to release the offender. Individuals who continue to pose a danger to the public would remain in prison—indefinitely, if necessary. All cases need careful assessment. Many criminals are released early, only to reoffend quickly.
The former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor, said recently:
I believe public confidence in the system is ended when convicted criminals are seen to walk free from prison after serving rather less than half their sentences, however good their behaviour may have been in the interim.
He was right.
Many of my constituents will welcome the proposal that the average sentence for a third conviction of dealing in hard drugs such as heroin or Ecstasy should be more than four years. Many of us believe that even that punishment is not sufficiently severe, but we welcome tougher sentencing of individuals who not only take drugs but deal in them, and affect the lives of many young people. In the past 12 months, we have seen the deaths of several young people who would be alive today were it not for the availability of drugs on our streets.
The proposal for stiffer sentences for persistent burglars will also be welcomed. While a burglary may only take the form of an entry on a court list, that cannot reflect its effect on the victim—who may be an elderly person living alone.
In 1993–94, the average Crown court sentence passed on a first-time domestic burglar was 16.2 months, but for offenders with seven or more convictions, it was only 19.4 months—which is nonsense. Almost 30 per cent. of those offenders were not imprisoned, but returned to the community to continue their nefarious activities. I am pleased that it is proposed that any person aged 18 or over convicted of domestic burglary and with two or more previous convictions for similar offences will automatically receive a minimum three-year sentence.
Many professionals have said that the Home Secretary's proposals are unrealistic and will not work, but many people outside the House want tougher sentencing and longer terms of imprisonment, to prevent reoffending. The public welcome the decrease in crime, but they also want to go about their business and not have to lock themselves into their homes early in the evening because of the number of criminals who are released from prison to stalk our streets.

Ms Ann Coffey: I have a deep sense of anger and frustration at the problems experienced by many of my constituents every day of their lives. I will try to control myself and not use unparliamentary language—although I doubt that anything I might say could match the comments made to me every day of the week.
The Home Secretary did not address disorder—neighbour nuisance, harassment, abuse, anti-social behaviour in the street, vandalism and graffiti. I was looking forward to seeing whether "Protecting the Public" would address those problems. Paragraph 3.41 states:
It is vital that the law should be adequate to enable the police to maintain public order.
Excellent—but the paragraph goes on to cite
travellers who invade rural communities
and
illegal open air raves".
Neither applies to my urban constituency.
Paragraph 3.42 states:
The Government believes it is intolerable that trespassers should be allowed to ruin people's enjoyment of their own property or their legitimate business activity.
Although that is correct, do not the Government consider it intolerable that people should be allowed to ruin their neighbours' lives and to make life a misery for the public on the streets? If the Government think that, why are they not addressing those problems? At present, the only


redress is an injunction in the civil courts, but the cost is a deterrent. It is time the Government gave those problems more serious attention than does the White Paper.
I was not surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) mentioned a 12 per cent. rise in public disorder complaints. I receive letters and telephone calls every week from constituents in various states of depression, anxiety and frustration.
The Home Office has commented that public disorder leads to high levels of avoidance behaviour. People are afraid to go out at night. Pensioners remain in their homes, terrified. Women will not contemplate going out at night because they fear that the streets are unsafe. The term "avoidance behaviour" is a pretty way of describing the absolute terror felt by the people who adopt it. Initiatives such as Homewatch and Streetwatch are attempting to address public disorder, but they will not be successful unless such disorder and its causes are properly addressed.
After a surgery, I often have to write to the chief superintendent about matters raised by my constituents. That correspondence has increased over the past year. The Stockport police have always been responsive and helpful within the limits of their resources and existing law.
I will cite a typical, not abnormal case that came to my attention last Saturday. One of my constituents suffers from angina, spondylitis and epilepsy—and his wife suffers from cirrhosis and is taking anti-depressants. The couple's 12-year-old daughter and 11-year-old son are terrified of going out on the streets. That family live on a council estate, but they have no chance of being transferred, because the level of harassment that they are suffering—windows being smashed and targeted burglaries—is normal for that estate. That couple would have to suffer more to be placed on the transfer list.
The council does its best. The only power at its disposal is eviction, but that relies on evidence. People are unwilling to give evidence, because they will end up suffering more harassment without protection. It is not enough for the council to rely on civil remedies. The law should make it easier for the police to intervene and control the environment.
In another part of my constituency, a public meeting was held after several months of anti-social behaviour by youths on the street. It was attended by 150 residents and police representatives. The residents vociferously expressed their problems. Such public meetings are held all year round. As soon as one public meeting and a problem is sorted out in one part of the constituency, the problem moves to another part, and we then have to have another public meeting to sort it out. The police are very helpful with short-term strategies, but we cannot go on like this. We have to have a proper strategic view to deal with this type of disorder.
A strategic view seems to be missing. I am not surprised that such a view is missing, as the Government are not paying any serious attention to it. They have not even mentioned it in their document, "Protecting the Public".
Another document that perhaps illustrates the problem is the Greater Manchester policing plan. Under a heading of "Public Reassurance", they state that the national objective is
to provide high visibility policing so as to reassure the public.
That reassurance is exactly what the public are asking for, which is a reflection of the public's concern that no longer is there law and order on the streets.
Greater Manchester police state that their target is:
To achieve a 50 per cent. satisfaction level with levels of foot and mobile patrols.
A 50 per cent. satisfaction level would be an enormous rise in satisfaction, because currently there is no public satisfaction with police visibility. I do not blame the police for that, because they have to put their resources where the Home Office asks them to.
The Greater Manchester police have recognised the their difficulties with the public over disorder and have set a local objective, which is
to co-operate with young people, schools, parents and residents to promote community harmony.
That is an excellent objective, but I doubt whether the Home Office will give it any recognition or the necessary resources to accomplish it. There must be a great deal of resourcing if community policing is to be performed effectively. It takes up a lot of police time.

Mr. Howard: Is the hon. Lady aware that we have increased spending on the police by 100 per cent. in real terms since 1979? Is she aware that the country is rapidly getting fed up of Labour Back Benchers giving speeches in every debate in the House and outside, in which they complain about resources and ask for more money, while the shadow Chancellor and the shadow Chief Secretary go round the country saying, "You don't need to worry about your taxes because Labour will not spend any more money on anything"?

Ms Coffey: I am sorry that I annoyed the Home Secretary, but the truth is very painful. Whatever figure he gives about increasing police resources, ultimately the public are extremely fed up and very angry about the levels of disorder they have to put up with. The Home Secretary really should stop worrying about what Labour Back Benchers are telling him, and start worrying about and taking some note of what the public are trying to tell him.
The causes of disorder are very complex, and there are no simple solutions. We must have a short-term and a long-term strategy. We must ask what is the cause of disorder, particularly among young people. We must examine problems in the provision of leisure facilities and youth facilities, and listen to young people.
Perhaps there are other preventative measures that the Home Secretary could take. As he is probably aware, I am the co-chair of the British parliamentary lighting group. We have long been requesting the Home Office's acceptance that improved street lighting decreases crime levels and the fear of crime. That does not seem to have been accepted by the Home Secretary, although he accepts the effectiveness of closed-circuit television cameras in shopping centres—which are effective, but they are not appropriate for residential areas.
The Home Secretary must ensure that the police have the time to support crime prevention, such as the homewatch and streetwatch schemes. Many people are very willing to enter into partnerships and do what they can to make their neighbourhoods safe, but they need support. Police time is not available, because they have to deal with the enormous amount of crime.

Madam Speaker: Order. I regret having to call the hon. Lady to order.

Sir Jim Spicer: Madam Speaker, I gave you an undertaking that I shall be five minutes, and five minutes I will be—because I know that you will not allow me any longer.
I was delighted to hear the view of the Liberal party expressed so clearly by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). I noted two points that he made: prison does not work; and we are looking for retribution. Yes, we are; and prison does work. Those are two points.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has been under some attack. He has very broad shoulders. I should like to tell him: by all means listen to the public, and also listen to the police.
I should just like to read a letter sent to The Times last week by my chief constable, the chief constable of Dorset. He said:
Dear Sir,
The Lord Chief Justice's condemnation of minimum sentencing (Times May 23rd) was a revealing insight into the workings of a very senior judicial mind.
Having recognised the Home Secretary's determined attempt to respond to wide public concern for which the Lord Chief Justice acknowledged there is considerable support, he then goes on to state his preference for the allegedly unanimous, but opposite, views of those who 'work in the system' rather curiously omitting any reference to the police. We do have a little experience in these matters, but to ignore or dismiss the feelings and perceptions of the ordinary person in the street is much more serious.
His comment that 'certainty in sentencing can only be achieved by sacrificing justice' is I believe altogether too sweeping. The new proposals are not aimed at first time offenders, crimes of passion or foolishness but to persistent offenders who are not being deterred by the criminal justice system at present. Anyone who has had 'cheek by jowl' contact with persistent criminals over the years knows that the one sentence they hate more than any other is prison. Despite their displays of bravado when questioned on the subject most would sell their grannies to avoid it. However the courts regularly save them that inconvenience by allowing them to 'beat the system' even when convicted.
In my view unlimited judicial discretion in sentencing burglars in particular, is robbing the criminal justice system of its deterrent value and undermining the delivery of justice in the eyes of ordinary law abiding citizens. The Lord Chief Justice in defence of his sentencing discretion suggests that 'the value of the theft, the lapse of time between arrests, how many offences have been committed, whether it was drunken opportunism and the effect on the victim should all be considered'. This is precisely where the delivery of 'Justice' is going wrong, it is focusing too much on the circumstances of the offender and not enough on the victim.
Who is to judge the 'value' of a theft? How many times is it suggested than 'drunken opportunism' be regarded as tolerable? Should the persistent offender benefit from some mitigation in sentence because he didn't manage to steal very much or because he has evaded arrest for months or years, or because the hapless victim has often bravely carried on their life without outward sign of injury? This just does not make sense, any more than the referral to the cliche 'that what really deters criminals is the certainty of arrest and detection'.
Detection and arrest alone for the regulars are no more than a temporary irritation, without the certainty of a deterrent sentence and that means prison. If the American experience is that they are all pleading 'not guilty' then discount the sentence to encourage a 'guilty' plea but ensure that they still go to prison!
Finally I am astonished at the way that his Lordship has misdirected himself in relation to the relevance of the burglary detection rate, which he quotes as 3 in 20, and then seeks to use as evidence to invalidate a 'minimum sentencing' policy because so few offences come to court. This is a complete misunderstanding of the crime figures.

It is now well established that a small percentage of persistent criminals commit a disproportionately large amount of crime. So reference to the number of offences that come to court completely misses the point. Modern police investigation techniques target known and active criminals and they are being caught and prosecuted over and over again, but for only a fraction of the offences they commit. Unlimited judicial discretion which is over-focused on the offender is not providing deterrent sentences. The system really must stop patronising criminals with misplaced sympathy and talk of rehabilitation when they chose to commit crime for greed, excitement and peer group status. Treat them as adults with minds of their own and make them, not the victims, understand the fear and consequences of crime.
Yours faithfully,
Chief Constable.
That, Home Secretary, is the message from the people of this country. Ignore the waffling that we always get from the Opposition, which I have had to listen to for 24 years.

Mr. Alun Michael: In that case, it is obvious that the hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir J. Spicer) has not listened to or understood a great deal while he has been sitting here.
This has been an extraordinary debate. Not only did the Home Secretary try, by publishing another White Paper, to distract attention from the White Paper that he had chosen to debate, but he was joined on the Government Front Bench by the Secretary of State for Scotland, whose published proposals on sentencing are quite different from those of the Home Secretary. What a way of running what was supposed to be a crime week, intended to regain the initiative from the Labour party.
Crime Week has been a disaster for the Home Secretary. That was bound to happen, not only because he seems to get everything wrong, but because the difference between the two parties is that the Labour party is serious about tackling crime. The country knows that, and will see it when we are in government.
We have heard the White Paper torn apart by the former Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), who said that the Home Secretary's proposals would be visibly unjust and counter-productive, would not do much for deterrence, and needed sensible rethinking.
From the criticisms both inside and outside the House, it is clear that, although the Home Secretary has now woken up to the problem on which the Labour party has focused for a considerable number of years, his White Paper is less robust than the proposals that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the shadow Home Secretary, has already published, and does not stand up to the same scrutiny.
Indeed, the Home Secretary was so concerned not to give credit to my hon. Friend that he put himself into the absurd position of defending the presence of eight and nine-year-olds on the street well into the night. He tried to wriggle out of it by saying that the police already have the power to act, but he is wrong, except in very specific and limited circumstances. Anybody who has come across the problems in practice knows that that is not the case.
One police superintendent said that he supported
proposals aimed at keeping vulnerable youngsters off the streets at night and away from potential criminal activity".


He agreed, as many youth workers have, about encouraging and enabling parents to take proper responsibility for the care and control of their children, and continued:
We are happy to discuss the curfew proposal, but some form of legislation would be required before we had any power to impose such a blanket measure and extensive consultation with the community would also be needed".
That is precisely what my hon. Friend proposed, which is in general a sensible way of tackling a real problem.
During the debate the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) gave loyal but misguided support to the Home Secretary. But the hon. Gentleman does not take crime in the community as seriously as did his predecessor, and we look forward to the return of John P. Smith at the general election.
I share with the hon. Gentleman the police division of the Vale of Glamorgan, and I am pleased that we now have extra police on the streets. However, it was the Secretary of State for Wales who for several years denied the South Wales police the cash they needed, so it is foolish for a Conservative Member to draw attention to the Government's failure in that regard. It is also foolish for Conservative Members to talk about the Government's record on police numbers, as the Home Secretary did when he intervened desperately on my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey), despite the short time available to her, because he did not seem to have confidence in his Minister of State.
In the run-up to the 1992 general election the Government promised an extra 1,000 police officers, but what has happened since March 1992? By 30 September 1995 the number of police officers had decreased by 860. What a record. The Home Secretary has nothing to be proud of in connection with police numbers and with his support of the police.
The hon. Members for Vale of Glamorgan and for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) were both signatories to the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee which demanded statutory regulation of the private security industry. I am surprised that neither of them has been consistent enough to demand its implementation in the debate.
Today's White Paper would allow employers access to criminal records. That is sensible, especially with violent offenders and sex offenders who might wheedle their way into working with children. But the police and the private security industry, as well as the Labour party, have demanded statutory regulation to protect the public against rogue crooked employers too.
By bringing in only half the prescription, the Home Secretary will allow crooked employers, about which we have already given evidence, access to the records of those whom they seek to employ. The Mafia would be delighted with such an arrangement. We keep being told that the Home Secretary is still considering the Select Committee's report, but when the Home Office gave evidence to the Select Committee, its representatives said that it was not really interested, and did not support the idea of statutory regulation. Is it not true that the Home Secretary is unwilling to provide, or is prevented by his Cabinet colleagues from providing, the statutory regulation needed to protect the public?
Anyone who has followed the events or the long-drawn-out investigations in north Wales knows, even if the full report does not reach the public domain, that

paedophiles plotted and planned the systematic abuse of children. To allow people in positions of influence as employers in the public or private sector to know details about sex offenders, without themselves being investigated, is surely a recipe for disaster.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) feared that listing acquittals would allow rumour to have the force of a conviction. That is a difficult area, but the level of conviction for child sex offences is very low, and the fact that so few offences come to light is a scandal. We need to do more to protect children against the predators. Yet in recent weeks the Conservatives blocked a Bill to establish a register of paedophiles.
Given the overwhelming evidence that paedophiles are the most devious and cunning people in the world, as well as the most despicable, and given the evidence from "The Cook Report" that most child sex offenders expect to reoffend on release, and use their time in prison reflecting on past abuse and planning future abuse, it is an absolute scandal that only last week the Home Secretary led Conservative Members into the Lobby to defeat amendments to the law which would have helped to protect children by preventing witness statements and photographic evidence from circulating in prison as a stimulus to future offences.
Belatedly, the Conservative party has woken up to the disastrous level of crime, to its impact on ordinary people, and to the fact that Conservatives are no longer believed by the public. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) condemned the Government for taking 17 years to get round to tackling crime. He was right, but he then went on to make a total fool of himself by trying to blame the Labour party for the failures of the past 17 years.
We shall take no lessons from that hon. Gentleman, who by his own admission has not taken an interest in law and order debates for many years. We shall take no lessons from a Conservative party that has yet to apologise for the introduction of the poll tax. As somebody who has been a magistrate since 1972, and has worked successfully for many years on projects to reduce crime in my constituency and in the rest of my area, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I did not discover crime and the need for clarity of punishment when I entered the House—and nor did many of my hon. Friends.
I can tell the hon. Gentleman and his constituents this: the leader of the Labour party was right to promise to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. Under a Government led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), with my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn as Home Secretary, that will become a national strategy rather than a mere promise by the Labour party, and it will be welcomed by the police and the public alike.
The Conservative party is condemned by its own record. The level of crime is twice as high as when the Conservatives came into office; only one offence in 50 leads to punishment by a court; only one in 750 leads to a punishment involving a custodial sentence. We need the practical and comprehensive policies of the Labour party to nip young offending in the bud, to tackle violence, to deal with nuisance neighbours, and to introduce consistency of sentencing in a way that will work, instead of doing as the Government do when they have to amend their own legislation every other year—and indeed, sometimes almost in the course of a single year.
The Home Secretary said earlier that it was the first duty of Government to maintain law and order, and to allow citizens to walk the streets in safety and to sleep securely in their beds at night. Yes, but the Conservative Government have failed to provide that safety and security. Since they came into office they have presided over not only a doubling in the level of recorded crime, but an increase of 151 per cent. in crimes of violence and an increase of 448 per cent. in robbery. They have no right to claim virtue in relation to law and order.
The Government have failed, yet they continually seek to pin the blame on the Labour party, which, although it seems to have escaped the Home Secretary's notice, has not been in office for the past 17 years. They seem to find refuge in a mantra of inaccuracies provided by Tory central office. But, if one reads the record that we published this week, one will see that on occasion after occasion, it is Labour that has come forward with constructive proposals, Labour that has supported the Government when they are right and criticised them when they are wrong, and Labour that will be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime when in office.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I am glad that the debate was ended by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) in the same farcical mode as his hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) began it. Labour Members have made some extraordinary comments today. They are not quite sure which way to turn, whether to keep up with the rhetoric of being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime or to condemn some of our proposals and support some colleagues in the other place. They just do not know what way to squirm. We shall find out in 10 minutes what Labour will do about our proposals.
At one point, the hon. Member for Blackburn implied that he was worried that the longer prison sentences that we propose would not be brought in soon enough. Does anyone seriously believe that the Labour party, which does not believe in the private finance initiative or building prisons more rapidly, will build prisons faster than the Conservative Government would to enable that policy to be implemented more speedily? It is so farcical.

Mr. Michael: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclean: No, I will not.

Mr. Michael: rose—

Mr. Maclean: Sit down.
I turn to criminal injuries compensation. I am not going to lecture the Opposition, I merely want to inform my hon. Friends, in case they were worried or were taken in for a moment by the hon. Member for Blackburn, who said that the criminal injuries compensation measures on which we voted a few months ago could have led to cuts in such compensation. Here are the figures for the past five years: in 1990–91, £109 million was paid out, in 1991–92 the figure was £143 million, in 1992–93 it was £152 million, in 1993–94 it was £165 million, and in 1994–95 it was £175 million.

Mr. Michael: rose—

Mr. Maclean: No, I will not give way. Now, the year of cuts—

Mr. Michael: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister ignores the fact that there were £700 million-worth of cuts in the Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order. He is being very mischievous.

Mr. Maclean: As I said, Labour Members are squirming tonight and will go for any sort of abuse.
I say to my hon. Friends, what about the year of cuts? In 1994–95 we paid out £175 million, but last year, the Government paid out £183 million to the victims of crime: the highest and most generous compensation scheme of any country in the world except the United States.
I listened carefully to the thoughtful speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd). He said that he was worried that some drug addicts and burglars might be imprisoned after their third offence and there might be some unfairness on occasions. Such people will have two chances beforehand. They will not receive a minimum sentence for the first conviction.
Some people might share the view that it would be a little unfortunate if those who are simply passing on a cannabis cigarette or whatever were sent to prison, but we are not dealing with cannabis. Drug dealers who will be liable to a minimum sentence are those who are dealing in class A drugs. If someone is convicted for a third time for selling crack or cocaine, I have no sympathy for such a person being sent to prison. Have we not heard of so many tragic occasions in the past few years of people dying through drugs—not because they got them from professional dealers but because they bought a tablet from a so-called friend? On resources, I refer my right hon. Friend to chapter 13 of the White Paper, which sets out the details.
I agree entirely with the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler), who pointed out the tremendous success in deterring driving and drink-driving offences. The threat of imprisonment through the totting-up procedure has worked wonders. He gave excellent support for the Government's proposals, and I totally support what he said.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) knows that I cannot comment on the details of the constituency case that he mentioned, but I sincerely hope that his constituent will find some comfort from his public support of her today. If a Member of Parliament can publicly support her, I hope that others in his constituency will have the courage to do likewise.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) promoted what my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) described as the producer view. I must remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Criminal Justice Act 1991 was not designed to stop people going to prison but to ensure that prison and proper tough community sentences were given equal consideration and that each was used when and where appropriate. He was worried about shorter sentences. Let me tell him, we


already have shorter sentences, but they are dishonest. They are not what is pronounced in court. The prisoner does not serve that. We are merely trying to bring in some honesty.
There is a myth that rapists will find no option but—

Mr. Straw: rose

Mr. Maclean: I want to conclude this point. The hon. Gentleman had 35 minutes and failed to make his points. He is not going to steal my remaining seven or eight minutes.

Mr. Straw: rose—

Mr. Maclean: I will not give way.
A myth has grown that rapists may as well kill the victims. It is still a myth even if great men repeat it. As soon as the Lord Chief Justice made that point, I checked with experts in the Home Office research department and asked them to trawl the literature on the subject. From the literature that we have studied, there is no suggestion whatever that that is the likely course rapists will take in future because it would require a perfectly calm, logical rapist, who in the moment of rape took a legally correct decision to kill the victim. We have looked at the available research—much is American—but can find no research whatever to suggest that rapists are more likely to kill their victim.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) made a good point that community sentences have higher reoffending rates than prison. That point needs to be made very clearly. One of the myths that has grown over the years is that prisons are universities of crime. The real universities of crime are the street corners, where the practicals can be carried out immediately.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk congratulated the police on their excellent funding settlement in Suffolk and elsewhere.
The Opposition today could quote only some of their Lordships in the other place who come to their rescue as their allies. I find it extraordinarily rich that, in a debate on law and order, the Opposition can rely only on support from some of their Lordships in another place, which the Opposition propose to abolish if they are ever elected to form a Government. Our proposals are supported by people the length and breadth of the country, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset made clear. It is the first time that I have heard a chief constable's speech in this House and I would like to hear more of them.
It is quite clear that today's debate has highlighted the divide between the Conservative party and the Labour party. We have set out clear, considered and concrete proposals, which will help to protect the public from persistent and dangerous criminals and have the wholehearted support of the police. Over there on the Opposition Benches sit members of the Labour party—a party totally opposed to our proposals, but too frightened to openly and honestly admit it. The hon. Member for Blackburn has ducked and dived and dodged and weaved today in a pathetic attempt to avoid alienating either his Back Benchers or the public—hence the extraordinary Opposition amendment on which we shall be voting in a few minutes. Opposition Front-Bench Members will be reassuring their hon. Friends that they are voting against the Tory proposals. At the same time, the spin doctors are reassuring the press that the Labour party really does support the Home Secretary's proposals.
The Labour party has tried to debate anything other than the proposals set out in the White Paper. Their so-called strategy for crime is not worthy of the name. I reckon that Labour Members must pray that smoking is never banned because, if it is, it would deprive them of the fag packets on which they need to work out their future policies.
The Labour party talks about crime prevention and about a six-year old report which proposed giving local authorities a statutory duty to undertake crime prevention. While Labour talks, we have been empowering local partnerships up and down the country to install closed circuit television and to promote neighbourhood watch. Labour talks about promoting and supporting the police. We heard the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth say that he was worried about the number of police officers since the last election. We now have 2,000 more constables than we had before the last election. When we came to office in—

It being Seven o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion, pursuant to Order [7 June].

The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes 278.

Division No. 153]
[7.00 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ainger, Nick
Cox, Tom


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cummings, John


Allen, Graham
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Alton, David
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dafis, Cynog


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Dalyell, Tarn


Armstrong, Hilary
Darling, Alistair


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)


Barnes, Harry
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Barron, Kevin
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)


Battle, John
Denham, John


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Dewar, Donald


Bennett, Andrew F
Dixon, Don


Benton, Joe
Donohoe, Brian H


Bermingham, Gerald
Dowd, Jim


Berry, Roger
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Blunkett, David
Eastham, Ken


Boateng, Paul
Etherington, Bill


Bradley, Keith
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fatchett, Derek


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Faulds, Andrew


Brown, N (N'c'tie upon Tyne E)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Burden, Richard
Fisher, Mark


Byers, Stephen
Flynn, Paul


Caborn, Richard
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Callaghan, Jim
Foster, Don (Bath)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Foulkes, George


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fraser, John


Campbell-Savours, D N
Fyfe, Maria


Canavan, Dennis
Galbraith, Sam


Cann, Jamie
Galloway, George


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Gapes, Mike


Chidgey, David
Garrett, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gerrard, Neil


Church, Judith
Godman, Dr Norman A


Clapham, Michael
Godsiff, Roger


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Gordon, Mildred


Clelland, David
Graham, Thomas


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Coffey, Ann
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cohen, Harry
Grocott, Bruce


Connarty, Michael
Hain, Peter


Corbett, Robin
Hanson, David






Hardy, Peter
Mowlam, Marjorie


Harman, Ms Harriet
Mudie, George


Harvey, Nick
Mullin, Chris


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Murphy, Paul


Henderson, Doug
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Heppell, John
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
O'Hara, Edward


Hinchliffe, David
Olner, Bill


Hoey, Kate
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hood, Jimmy
Parry, Robert


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pearson, Ian


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Pendry, Tom


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Pickthall, Colin


Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
Pike, Peter L


Hoyle, Doug
Pope, Greg


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Illsley, Eric
Purchase, Ken


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Raynsford, Nick


Jamieson, David
Reid, Dr John


Janner, Greville
Rendel, David


Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys MÔn)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Rooker, Jeff


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)



Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Rooney, Terry


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jowell, Tessa
Rowlands, Ted


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sheerman, Barry


Keen, Alan
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Short, Clare


Khabra, Piara S
Simpson, Alan


Kilfoyle, Peter
Skinner, Dennis


Kirkwood, Archy
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Lewis, Terry
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Soley, Clive


Litherland, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Livingstone, Ken
Spellar, John


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Steinberg, Gerry


Loyden, Eddie
Stevenson, George


McAllion, John
Stott, Roger


McAvoy, Thomas
Strang, Dr. Gavin


McCartney, Ian
Straw, Jack


Macdonald, Calum
Sutcliffe, Gerry


McKelvey, William
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McLeish, Henry
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Maclennan, Robert
Tipping, Paddy


MacShane, Denis
Touhig, Don


Madden, Max
Trickett, Jon


Maddock, Diana
Turner, Dennis


Mahon, Alice
Vaz, Keith


Mandelson, Peter
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Marek, Dr John
Wallace, James


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Walley, Joan


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Wicks, Malcolm


Maxton, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Meacher, Michael
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Meale, Alan
Wilson, Brian


Michael, Alun
Winnick, David


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wise, Audrey


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Worthington, Tony


Milburm, Alan
Wray, Jimmy


Miller, Andrew
Wright, Dr Tony


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Morgan, Rhodri



Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Mr. Eric Martlew and


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Mr. Eric Clarke.





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Alexander, Richard
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Amess, David
Evennett, David


Arbuthnot, James
Faber, David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fabricant, Michael


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Fishburn, Dudley


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Forman, Nigel


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Baldry, Tony
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Forth, Eric


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bates, Michael
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Batiste, Spencer
Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Beggs, Roy
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bellingham, Henry
Fry, Sir Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Gale, Roger


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gallie, Phil


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gardiner, Sir George


Body, Sir Richard
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Booth, Hartley
Garnier, Edward


Boswell, Tim
Gill, Christopher


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gillan, Cheryl


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bowis, John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gorst, Sir John


Brandreth, Gyles
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Brazier, Julian
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bright, Sir Graham
Grylls, Sir Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hague, Rt Hon William


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Burt, Alistair
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Butcher, John
Hannam, Sir John


Butler, Peter
Hargreaves, Andrew


Butterfill, John
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hawkins, Nick


Carrington, Matthew
Hawksley, Warren


Carttiss, Michael
Hayes, Jerry


Cash, William
Heald, Oliver


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Hendry, Charles


Churchill, Mr
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clappison, James
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Horam, John


Congdon, David
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Conway, Derek
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Couchman, James
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cran, James
Hunter, Andrew


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jack, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Day, Stephen
Jenkin, Bernard


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jessel, Toby


Devlin, Tim
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dover, Den
Kirkhope, Timothy


Duncan, Alan
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knox, Sir David


Dykes, Hugh
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Lait, Mrs Jacqui






Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Leigh, Edward
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


Lord, Michael
Soames, Nicholas


Luff, Peter
Speed, Sir Keith


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spencer, Sir Derek


MacKay, Andrew
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spink, Dr Robert


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Spring, Richard


Madel, Sir David
Sproat, Iain


Maitland, Lady Olga
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Malone, Gerald
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Marland, Paul
Steen, Anthony


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stephen, Michael


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Stewart, Allan


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Streeter, Gary


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Sumberg, David


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Sweeney, Walter


Merchant, Piers
Sykes, John


Mills, Iain
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Moate, Sir Roger
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Thomason, Roy


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nelson, Anthony
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Neubert, Sir Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Nicholls, Patrick
Tredinnick, David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Trend, Michael


Oppenheim, Phillip
Twinn, Dr Ian


Ottaway, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Page, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Paice, James
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Walden, George


Patten, Rt Hon John
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Waller, Gary


Pawsey, James
Ward, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Pickles, Eric
Waterson, Nigel


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Watts, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wells, Bowen


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Whitney, Ray


Powell, William (Corby)
Whittingdale, John


Rathbone, Tim
Widdecombe, Ann


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wilkinson, John


Richards, Rod
Willetts, David


Riddick, Graham
Wilshire, David


Robathan, Andrew
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wolfson, Mark


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wood, Timothy


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Yeo, Tim


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela



Sackville, Tom
Tellers for the Noes:


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Mr. Simon Burns and Mr. Sebastian Coe.


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House supports the proposals set out in the White Paper `Protecting the Public' to introduce automatic life sentences for serious violent and sex offenders; mandatory minimum prison sentences for persistent house burglars and drug dealers; and to introduce greater honesty into the sentencing process.

Northern Ireland

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 4th June, be approved.
Once more I need to come to the House to seek authority for the renewal of the current provisions for the government of Northern Ireland by direct rule. I regret that this is needed. These arrangements are far from what is ideal in a democracy, but there is as yet in Northern Ireland no broad enough base of agreement for any other system, including any system founded on greater local responsibility, so we must renew direct rule.
At last, however, after long endeavour, a process of inclusive political negotiations has begun. It moves us closer to the goal of establishing a sufficiently agreed system for the future. In the House tonight there will be as strong a wish that these negotiations shall succeed as there will be recognition that direct rule must continue until they do. 
No less strong, I reckon, will be a universal desire to express our outraged condemnation of what was perpetrated in Manchester on Saturday, which is directly relevant to this debate because it took place after the negotiations had begun. Those were negotiations that Sinn Fein could have entered, to sit with other political parties, for which the electorate had voted. They could have sat down with the rest on 10 June. But there was no renunciation of violence by the IRA, with whom they are so inextricably linked; no restoration of a ceasefire that should never have been abandoned, so they excluded themselves, just as they separately absented themselves—by their own decision—from the elected forum last Friday.
Instead, there was from the IRA a calculated declaration of their mind set. They declared on Saturday that their route to political change is the violent, not the democratic, route. The political process did not reject them: they rejected it. They showed that they have as yet no stomach for the disciplines of democracy. Therefore they tried to get what they want by denying random members of the public their most fundamental human rights. And, of course, they threaten more of the same, in Northern Ireland no less than in Great Britain.
That is exactly the kind of duress that this House and this Government, together with the Irish Government, have set our faces against.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Secretary of State, based on his experience, accept that the concessions gained after atrocities have been an incentive to Sinn Fein-IRA to continue along the same path as they have adopted in the past? Does he agree that the deliberate murder of a member of the Garda was, in effect, a Harvey Smith signal thrown at John Bruton in the Republic?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I agree, of course, with the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. It was a wicked and wholly unjustified action. I do not doubt that it was intended to convey the message that the hon. Gentleman has described.
I recognise no concessions to the IRA. Both Governments have made it clear that, through their political party, the IRA have to demonstrate that they are wholly committed to peaceful and democratic means. Until that comes about, there can be no participation for their political party in the negotiations. I acknowledge that the Government, in response to representations from numerous quarters, have changed their position on matters that have not concerned principle. We have done so in order—as we hoped—to demonstrate a sensible flexibility, not a willingness to move on points of principle.
I was saying that the IRA have tried to get their way by denying the most fundamental human rights to random members of the public—a kind of duress against which this House, the British Government and the Irish Government have made it clear that we will set our faces. We will not sit opposite people who imply there is more where the Manchester bomb came from unless we deliver across the table what they want.
That is why, after the South Quay attack on 9 February, we jointly declared that, for Sinn Fein, as an elected party, to enter negotiations, there had first to be an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire of August 1994. After 9 February, numerous further attacks have been made, culminating last Saturday at Manchester. But our rejection of duress stands, and it is, if possible, fortified.
We are not going to be satisfied with some tactical remission of violence. A purported restoration of the ceasefire last Monday, for example, anticipated by many commentators, would have been seen across the world as a cynical and callous ploy.

Mr. David Wilshire: I am reassured to hear my right hon. and learned Friend suggest that an unequivocal ceasefire is necessary, but will he tell the House what exactly he means by unequivocal and, on this occasion, what exactly he means by ceasefire?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I offer my hon. Friend a definition that I offered in this House some time ago. Unequivocal means of no other interpretation. For our part, we endorse the words of Mr. Bruton, whose support we gratefully acknowledge. It is for Sinn Fein and the IRA to find the words and the deeds to convince us, and the world, that violence is over: not tactically, not temporarily, but totally, over. I reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the House yesterday:
If the IRA and Sinn Fein wish to have any future interest in this process, they will clearly need to declare an unequivocal ceasefire. They will need to declare it immediately. They will also have to show that that ceasefire is credible and lasting, and is not just a tactical device to enable them to enter the talks until such time as it is convenient for them to leave. It is now up to them to demonstrate their credibility; it is not up to us or anyone else. They must demonstrate their credibility—but the talks will continue."— [Official Report, 18 June 1996; Vol. 279, c. 680–81.]
They have mightily increased the difficulty of that task, if indeed they really wish to set their hands to it.
The Government, however, are not going to give Sinn Fein the satisfaction of saying that in no foreseeable circumstances could they succeed. We still do not believe that to be the case. The position remains as it has been:

Sinn Fein have not been excluded; they exclude themselves. They must find words and the deeds to let themselves in, to convince the rest of us that violence is over for good. It is for them to establish such confidence in any ceasefire statement that they may make.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Are we not moving back to August 1994, and the arguments that told us that violence was over for good?
Would it not be more effective now to take a more political path? Twenty-one years have passed since this sort of legislation came into being. Twenty-one is usually regarded as the time when people come of age and take responsibility. Is it not time the House began to take responsibility for governing Northern Ireland in the same way as it governs the rest of the United Kingdom? We need not wait for the Scots to make up their minds how they want to be governed.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I said at the beginning that we have to renew direct rule because there is no sufficiently agreed basis for any other system, including any system involving greater local accountability. One possible foreseeable system is the type to which the hon. Gentleman has just alluded—sometimes called a wholly integrated system of government. That is not excluded from the ambit of the talks that are now commencing. But for any alternative to direct rule there needs to be a broad enough basis of agreement to make it stick.
Meanwhile, I wish to urge that it is of the highest importance that the old cycle of retaliation violence be not resumed. I pay tribute to the restraint and wisdom of those described as the combined loyalist military command for not allowing themselves to be provoked into abandoning their own ceasefire. In consequence, the loyalist parties have not excluded themselves from the negotiations, where they are now participating valuably and fully and thereby fulfilling the wishes of those who voted for them on 30 May.
I shall give a brief account of our stewardship in the past year. The first duty of any Government is the protection of their citizens, so I turn first to security policy. Since the ending of the ceasefire, a prudent guard was kept up, but security measures were adjusted to meet a reduced threat of violence. There is no doubt that this has improved the amenities of life for people in Northern Ireland enormously, but nothing was taken away that could not very soon be replaced.
Accordingly, yesterday, and again today, as a direct consequence of the IRA's terrorist threat, there was massive disruption of traffic in Northern Ireland and doubtless great inconvenience caused to the public. But I know that the people of Northern Ireland will always desire and expect the security forces to make whatever precautionary checks are needed, and to take all other steps within the law that the threat of terrorism may show to be needed.
For what my experience in Northern Ireland—four and a quarter years of it—is worth, I think nothing is going to induce any slackening of people's resolve within Northern Ireland to face down the obscene duress of terrorism. Therefore, so long as terrorism remains a threat to Northern Ireland's stability, the Government will meet it with a fully robust security policy. We shall base ourselves upon the excellent co-operation we enjoy in


security matters with the Irish authorities, and where possible we shall seek with them to enhance it. As in Great Britain, so in Northern Ireland, we shall be ready to adopt all lawful measures that new circumstances may require.
I want to express our gratitude to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and to the other security forces who support them, for their work. It is demanding and incessant. Over the past year, terrorist units have remained intact. Targeting, training, researching weapons and violent intimidation have all continued. There is continuing evidence of paramilitary involvement in drug dealing and racketeering. Murders have been carried out by terrorist organisations under the veil of action against drugs. Punishment beatings have been carried out regularly, revolting in their nature and extent. They have been carried out by both sides, and the number of victims has risen during the year.
All that will continue to be resolutely countered. If I were so advised, the third battalion, which was relocated after the ceasefire, would be returned to duty in support of the RUC in the Province. There will be no let-up—instead, many discontinued measures may have to be restored. As hon. Members would expect, neither cost nor the financial stringency that may result in other quarters of the administration of Northern Ireland will be allowed to impede the effort against terrorism.
As for economic progress, there is clear evidence of a further improvement in the performance of the Northern Ireland economy over the past year, even in comparison with the excellent performance of Great Britain. Over the year, unemployment has fallen to its lowest level for more than 14 years, employment has reached an all-time high and manufacturing output has continued to rise. Exports by Northern Ireland manufacturing firms have out-performed the United Kingdom as a whole, and inward investment is rising steadily. Tourism has reached a record high.
There are good grounds for confidence in the economic future of Northern Ireland. Political progress offers the prospect of yet more attractive developments. There is enormous potential in Northern Ireland for economic growth and for broadly shared prosperity. In the past year, part of that potential has been realised—the best is yet to come.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I received a response from the Northern Ireland Office that there had been 30 objections to the possibility of the Europe Tool Company investing in Northern Ireland. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is rather strange that British companies that purchase from the parent company in South Korea object to British people manufacturing the equipment? It would be a wonderful investment for the United Kingdom economy, particularly in Northern Ireland.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Member for Belfast, South is his usual charitable self in saying that it is rather strange.
I refer now to political progress. Intense efforts have been made to secure the beginning of political talks on an inclusive basis. As hon. Members know, the talks began, on schedule, on 10 June. The Government welcome Senator Mitchell's assumption of the chair at the opening plenary session, and the appointment of General de Chastelain and

Mr. Holkeri as chairman of strand 2 and the business committee and alternate chairman respectively. I express our deep appreciation of the selfless willingness of these distinguished gentlemen to help.
All nine parties presently participating in this political process have formally affirmed their commitment to the six principles of democracy and non-violence set out in the report of the international body that had been chaired by Senator Mitchell. However well the participants' democratic credentials were already established, I believe that it was an important step for them to reaffirm those principles—and they have done so. We would require the same of Sinn Fein if it succeeds in lifting its self-imposed exclusion.
I believe that these talks can succeed. We have come a long way already, but we must go a great deal further. There have been significant shifts in thinking in recent years among many of those present in the negotiations. The participants arrive at the negotiations with a mandate from their electors to take part to the full in the process. There is clearly a deep wish among the population of Northern Ireland—and, indeed, among all the people of these islands—after years of conflict, for a lasting peace and for consolidation of all the advantages and opportunities of which we have had a foretaste since the ceasefires.
The process commands much international support—I believe that there is much to welcome and nothing to suspect in that. As we have repeatedly made clear, the way forward lies in the hands of the participants. However, it bodes well for Northern Ireland, in the context of any future settlement, that there is such a high degree of positive international understanding. In looking back to the enthusiasm and delight with which the visit of President Clinton was greeted, I believe that the people of Northern Ireland understand that.
An important complement to the talks will be the elected forum, which had its first meeting last Friday—14 June. As has been made clear, it has no authority over the negotiations—it is a purely deliberative body. We see its usefulness lying in its ability to debate ways forward in the development of dialogue and understanding between the communities in Northern Ireland, and more broadly. It can do this with the benefit of the views of a wide range of interests that might be invited to address it—many of whom may be outside the political sphere. I am most grateful to Mr. John Gorman for agreeing to take on the sensitive role of the forum's interim chairman, and I wish it well.
I have set out our hopes for the negotiations and for the future well-being of Northern Ireland, which in many ways turns on them. We are likely to have months of discussion ahead—indeed, I hope that we do. It is unlikely to be a rapid process, and it may often be a rough and uncomfortable one. The rewards of the process are potentially great for all sections of the community in Northern Ireland. Indeed, the welfare of people in both islands is intimately bound up with the settlement that we hope to reach and to put to the people in a referendum.
There is a great responsibility on all of us who are involved in the negotiations. Sinn Fein could have been a part of the negotiations, had the IRA not abandoned its ceasefire. Sinn Fein could have joined the negotiations last week, but the IRA chose not to restore the ceasefire and to bomb the people in Manchester instead. The talks


will continue—with or without Sinn Fein. The IRA can destroy the prospects of Sinn Fein—the other side of its coin—being a part of the talks process, but the IRA cannot destroy the talks process.
I hope that we shall soon have a more satisfactory basis for administration in Northern Ireland. Until then, however, we must renew the current arrangements. I commend the draft order to the House.

Ms Marjorie Mowlam: Tonight, we have come to the House to renew the Northern Ireland Act 1974 at a time when many of the Northern Ireland Members of Parliament are working in Belfast, trying to move the talks process forward. We have come here in an atmosphere of sadness and grave disappointment. Our thoughts must be with the victims, and their families, of Saturday's sickening terrorist attack in Manchester. We commend their courage, and the courage of all the people of that town, as they continue the huge task of clearing up after the devastation of the IRA bomb.
When the Secretary of State sums up this evening, it might be helpful if he would tell us about any special arrangements or compensation that might be available to those who live and work in and around the Arndale centre in Manchester.
The Labour party has nothing but outright condemnation and contempt for the callous individuals who mounted this attack and for the cowards who sanctioned it. Had it not been for the professionalism of the police in clearing the area and for sheer good fortune, dozens of people could have lost their lives.
Those who carried out this act must be brought to justice swiftly. We are delighted with the response from the public in support of the police in their investigations. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said on Saturday:
If the IRA think they can shift the resolve of any Government with this action they are cruelly mistaken.
After the bombing in Manchester, it is up to Sinn Fein to convince us that it has a commitment to the peace process. It is up to Sinn Fein to say and do whatever is necessary to restore what confidence it can in its shattered credibility. It is a tribute to the determination of the leaders of the loyalist community that its ceasefire has been maintained.
When the bomb exploded at Canary Wharf on 9 February, killing Ivan Bashir and John Jeffries, the two Governments pledged their determination to continue the search for peace. Their concerted efforts produced the communiqué of 28 February, which detailed the route to the all-party talks on 10 June. Not everyone agreed with that route—we understand why—but everyone followed it.
The agreed stance adopted by the British and the Irish Governments demonstrated its worth once again this week. We welcome and fully support the two Governments' determination to continue the talks process. In view of the public anger about the appalling murder of Garda McCabe in the Republic of Ireland, we acknowledge the Irish Government's decision to keep under review their official level contacts with Sinn Fein. They are asking very important questions, to which we all want a response.
The optimum result is a peace process that is as inclusive as possible. Although that is impossible at the moment, we must keep alive the possibility of inclusive dialogue at some point in the future. Following the important and welcome progress today, I hope that the talks in Belfast will continue with those parties who demonstrate, day in and day out, their commitment to peace and democracy. If Sinn Fein cannot do that, as the Secretary of State said this evening, the process must continue without them.
This annual debate has often taken place in exceptional circumstances—as it does again this evening—but it is concerned primarily with the Secretary of State's stewardship of Northern Ireland affairs in the past 12 months. In the absence of a new agreed settlement, decisions continue to be taken at a distance from the people of Northern Ireland in a manner that is not accountable. The absence of an agreement in Northern Ireland means that the centralisation of decision making in Westminster persists. When a policy is mistaken or when the Government mishandle a situation, people and businesses in Northern Ireland suffer, but their influence is limited.
For an example, we need look no further than the chaos and confusion surrounding the current beef crisis. Northern Ireland farmers should compare favourably with their counterparts in Britain if the framework before the European Union is accepted. Some 90 per cent. of the herds in Northern Ireland are grass-fed, there is a low incidence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, and a traceability system is in place. I have not read the details of the agreement announced on the news this evening, but it appears to be very general. It seems as though reference must be made to the veterinary committee every time the process moves forward. I do not think that it will make a big difference to the beef farmers in Northern Ireland, many of whom face disaster.
The privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity is another case in point. The current level of profits and prices are against consumer interests in Northern Ireland. A Monopolies and Mergers Commission referral is long overdue and the Government must account to the people of Northern Ireland for that delay. Furthermore, this year's Budget contained a nasty sting for training providers. Groups face cuts of between 25 and 40 per cent. after the adult community employment reductions. The Government pulled a further £2 million out of the hat, but only after sustained pressure.
Given the appalling level of unemployment in Northern Ireland—which costs taxpayers more than £300 million per year—it is economically and socially short-sighted to cut training schemes, especially when alternative plans, such as the community work programme, are struggling to get going. The Government's misplaced priorities are affecting key services in Northern Ireland.
Mismanagement has also proved a problem in the past year with the rise and rise of bureaucracy in the health service. Budget cuts are plunging the Northern Ireland health trusts into crisis only three months into the financial year. Northern Ireland's hospitals are gearing up for a summer of chaos. Hospitals such as the Royal Victoria in Belfast or Musgrave Park face theatre closures and cuts in the number of beds and jobs. Patient care will suffer and bureaucracy will escalate—that is the outcome of the Government's health policies.
When ideology triumphs over common sense, services suffer, money is wasted and the concerns of local people—citizens, consumers, business people and community representatives—are ignored. Sadly, that problem is not exclusive to the Government's stewardship in Northern Ireland—far from it. It is a symptom of a deeper malaise throughout the United Kingdom of a Government who are distant from and out of touch with the people.
Unless there is an agreement between the parties and consent is granted for a new settlement, the order will come before the House in the same form next year. A general election will intervene between now and then. If no agreement is reached and if a Labour Government are proposing the renewal of the order, we shall implement different policies from those that we are reviewing this year.
Labour has made it unequivocally clear that there can be no change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland without the consent of a majority of its people. It seems clear to me that an acceptance of that principle of consent means that Northern Ireland will continue as part of the United Kingdom for a long time into the future. There is clearly not consent among Unionists for a united Ireland and it is equally clear that Northern Ireland's existing status does not command the consent of nationalists. That is why we need new arrangements and structures that both communities can support. As we have said on previous occasions, Labour wants to see reconciliation between the two communities and between the two parts of Ireland—north and south—on the basis of consent.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I press the hon. Lady on that point. First, talk about two communities is often interpreted as division on the grounds of religion, but can people with opposing nationality claims share the same objectives? Secondly, the costs of generating electricity in Northern Ireland are a real problem and I understand that the contract will remain in place until 2002. Is the hon. Lady giving a commitment on behalf of her party that a Labour Government would reduce electricity generation costs in Northern Ireland?

Ms Mowlam: As to the hon. Gentleman's last point, the nature of those costs will be put before the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that the contract extends until 2002. However, we shall refer it to the MMC and, we hope, it will be dealt with. As to the hon. Gentleman's first point about the two communities and those with different national identities reaching some kind of agreement, he and I and the House should address that issue together. The hon. Gentleman's views and his ability to find ways to co-operate and to build consensus between the two communities are a crucial part of the equation.
Reconciliation between the two communities need not, as he suggests, be rooted in territory, in flags or in domination. It must be based on respect and therefore on an acceptance of each community's allegiances to Ireland or Britain and to Europe. That involves building agreement around institutions that all can share and that fully respect people's sense of allegiance to one nation or another.
That approach embraces the principles of the joint framework document which—together with the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the Downing Street

declaration—Labour recognises is a milestone on the road to peace. They are a testament to the commitment of the two Governments to work closely together in order to make progress in the search for peace. Labour would continue that work with the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland parties in order to reach a balanced settlement through negotiation and agreement.
If any party believes that it will get a better deal from Labour in the negotiations—assuming that we will be prepared to bully or to pressure a particular community in order to reach a settlement—it is badly mistaken. We support and uphold the principle of consent. We repudiate and reject the politics of threat and coercion. We will continue the talks, given the chance, in pursuit of agreement. We will uphold Labour's principles, which are, in essence, about justice, fairness and common sense.
We will also apply those principles in other parts of policy, such as policing. Our proposals improve significantly on those from the Government. For example, we have suggested the election of representatives to the police authority; assigning responsibility for implementing change; and progress in changing the composition of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
Our principles of fairness and justice will apply to anti-discrimination and fair employment proposals. We have made a detailed submission to the review of fair employment being undertaken at present by the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights. There is also a clear Labour commitment on human rights. We have made clear our commitment to the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into law in Northern Ireland, as in Britain, and we will work with the parties—which I hope will be working together already—to develop and introduce a Bill of Rights.
We will complete our consultations and introduce policies that will have a real impact on the day-to-day lives of people in Northern Ireland in areas such as the economy, welfare changes and nursery provision. After the vote in another place earlier this week, we hope that the nursery vouchers scheme, which would destroy chances of nursery education, can be stopped in time to provide decent places for three and four-year-olds.
One sensitive subject, proposals on which should be considered and debated more fully, is that of marches and parades. I have spoken and written often to the Secretary of State on that matter. Obviously, there are no simple answers, but we believe that the Government could give their view on the proposals that have been made by ourselves and others in recent weeks. The proposals include the establishment of an independent advisory group to inform the Secretary of State—not to dictate to him—of possible steps to reduce tensions and meet community concerns; the possibility of prescribing guidelines for the conduct of parades in disputed areas; and a system of prior planning permission, as has been recently proposed. It would be interesting if the Government would respond to those suggestions this evening.
I have said clearly tonight that no one should wait for Labour to make a difference in the negotiations. I hope that I have shown, by our criticisms of the Secretary of State's stewardship in the past year and by our policy commitments, that, given the chance, our policies would make a difference to people's lives in Northern Ireland. We believe that the practical policies that I have outlined


tonight would make a difference to all communities in their day-to-day lives. For now, we support and encourage the Government in continuing to try to take the talks process forward. We will do all that we can to help and support them in that task.

Sir James Molyneaux: I owe it to the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) to follow her on the key phrase she used—"the principle of consent". On the one word "consent", all else that we will consider tonight turns. It is the crucial term and, in some ways, is the only issue that should concern us in coming days.
My respectful advice to the hon. Lady would be that, if we seek consent in the political sense, we should not start with a high-wire act. The media of the world are orchestrated by Mr. Adams who has now become a television producer, given the way he managed and choreographed the photographs at the gate, which was not barred or locked, and the rehearsal that produced those magnificent pictures from the gullible news industry. I dismiss the mistaken idea that, when seeking to achieve consent, one should start with a blaze of glory and a tooting of trumpets on the high-wire act, because, instead of making progress, one falls off.
The fact that I am a modest man with much to be modest about teaches me that the only way to make progress is to go down the scale of options until we find the lowest level at which consent can be maintained. When we have done that, we can then start patiently building on the consent thus obtained, but right hon. and hon. Members should not imagine that we can do it the other way around.
Had this debate been held a week earlier, it would probably have been difficult for any hon. Member to express honestly held views about the farce of what my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has termed the 21st annual interim period extension device, which we are debating tonight, and how it could be replaced by some practical, permanent method of governing one of the four components of the United Kingdom. We would have been told a week ago to hold our horses, not to stir the situation or to reach for the impossible because devolution is just around the corner. The events of the past seven days have swept away all the inhibitions of two decades. We cannot now be silenced by exhortations to give peace a chance; to win the battle for hearts and minds; or to turn a blind eye to perceived concessions to terrorists in the expectation that those terrorists would be placated by perceived instalments of their ultimate aim.
Over two decades, the majority of right hon. and hon. Members have had reservations, but understandably they have felt that perhaps experiments should be put to the test. We now know the result, and the rescue brigade should not come to the aid of terrorists by insulting our intelligence with suggestions that contacts should be maintained and doors should be kept open to enable Mr. Adams and his friends to regain credibility for an utterly dishonest campaign which is as transparent as that waged by Hitler in 1939 and 1940, when he trampled all over eastern Europe and, at the same time, proclaimed himself a man of peace. I suggest that no public figure will want to forfeit respect by allowing himself to be conned yet again.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be wrong to follow the line of those in the media who misunderstood TUAS to mean a tactical use of the armed struggle instead of the total use of the armed struggle, which Hitler adopted and which Gerry Adams adopts?

Sir James Molyneaux: My hon. Friend knows the news industry well enough by now to know that, dedicated as it is to the ever-lasting search for soundbites as opposed to substance, it is not surprising that the news organisations fed off each other, brainwashed each other and came to a shallow conclusion without a shred of evidence. I hope that my hon. Friend will not feel that that is too harsh a stricture on the news industry, but I feel that it has a lot to answer for.
Another ceasefire or promise to disarm might spark some interest in the minds of some and might possibly provide material for chat shows, but would not be relevant now. The only real issue is the principle of consent, as the hon. Member for Redcar has said. It is not in the nature of terrorists anywhere to accept the democratic principle of consent. The rest of mankind takes it for granted, but consent exists in the terrorist vocabulary only for the purpose of calculating how a democratic people can be terrorised into consenting. For them, democracy will always have a low priority. The bomb and the gun have to be retained, not as a fall-back position, but as the driving force and the engine to extract concessions that will lead to surrender to ultimate terrorist demands.
Against that sober background, I appeal to the current Irish Government and any future Irish Government not to continue reiterating demands for concessions to republican requirements. That justification has disappeared now that the destruction of democracy is the asking price for a cessation of violence. No Irish Government should contemplate paying that price, even by instalments. Nor should a Dublin Government try to pressurise any British Government to consider such folly. The democratic structures of the United Kingdom must not be mutilated when it has been proved that such a course would achieve precisely nothing in return.
The main purpose of the recent election—the forum and the so-called peace talks—has been obliterated. The Secretary of State's curious requirement—as it is not original, I am not blaming the right hon. and learned Gentleman for inventing it—that there should be all-party support for any structure or option effectively rules out the possibility of devolved government in the foreseeable future. That being so, I shall stop beating my head against that brick wall.
Why does the Secretary imagine, or in what circumstances does he imagine, that the House would require all-party backing for arrangements for Scotland, for example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South has said? Why does the right hon. and learned Gentleman imagine that in the current talks he is likely to achieve results, when he knows, as I know, that, despite our determined efforts when he chaired the strand 1 talks in 1992, we were unable—two Governments and four parties were involved—to achieve agreement? Why is it thought possible now, with two and a half Governments involved—the half being the Government across the Atlantic—and nine or 10 parties, that they will be any more successful in achieving results?
It is to be hoped that the Government, given that the purpose of the election—the forum and the talks—has been obliterated in its main purpose, or main published and alleged purpose, would consider it possible to come to the House for consultation on possible future roles for the structures so recently established.
Soon, I know, we shall have predictable bleatings about the imaginary vacuum, which would probably be not all that much greater than in Scotland and Wales or the regions of England; but I have a duty to counter any anxiety about a possible vacuum, and in doing so I enlist the aid of the business managers and other parties in both Houses of Parliament.
With Northern Ireland ministerial co-operation, we can make fuller use, for example, of Wednesday morning sittings. We must press on with the aim of expanding the role of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee with provisions for sittings in Northern Ireland, in line with its Scottish counterpart. We can encourage Northern Ireland Members, in addition to those who are nominated, to attend legislative Committees of the House and to participate in debates.
In Northern Ireland, we can make more effective the scrutiny of proposed legislation by providing councillors with specialist knowledge with opportunities to discuss all important legislation with Ministers or heads of Departments at post-consultative stage.
As you will remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a week ago we touched on ideas for an economic committee based on both Houses of Parliament to buttress the excellent work of the Under-Secretary of State, Baroness Denton, along with that of her Department and the Industrial Development Board. There may have been the usual objections from the vaults of the Northern Ireland Office, but the grounds for such rearguard action have now been conclusively removed. We must start making progress in streamlining the system of governing the United Kingdom, including the Northern Ireland component, which my colleagues and I represent.
The resumption of violence will become a deterrent to investors, and that must be countered. The creation of a new all-party committee, based on both Houses, will do much to give confidence to overseas investors, and I hope will be of great assistance and support to the Secretary of State and his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office.
As the debate is focused on constitutional matters and not on security, I shall refrain from tendering in public my suggestions on security. It is, as the Secretary of State said this evening, for the Government to decide what new measures are required to defend the Queen's subjects wherever domiciled from terrorism from whatever quarter.
I trust that we have not entirely forgotten or dismissed the suggestion made by the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), for a supremo without ministerial burdens to co-ordinate a counter-insurgency strategy within the United Kingdom and Crown territories. We should not underestimate the benefits to the IRA of its tactical lull in terms of training, targeting and re-equipping over the past two years of the so-called ceasefire.
I believe that there is an urgent need for the Government to consult other European Governments to discover how those Governments completely eliminated the scourge of terrorism from their territories. I do not

doubt the capacity of the security forces and the police throughout the United Kingdom to meet the challenge, but the morale of the general public in Northern Ireland in the main and—I say this from experience of moving about this island—that of the general public here is in urgent need of repair. The public need to be convinced that the 20-year retreat is over and that the Government are convinced that any perceived concessions will merely prolong the agony and encourage murderers to do even more.
In conclusion, and in short, the Government must let it be seen that they now intend to take sides and support the 85 per cent. of people who flatly refused to vote for Sinn Fein-IRA on 30 May.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: It is a privilege to take up the remarks of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux). Not for the first time, and I am sure not for the last, I find that I substantially agree with the greater part of his speech. I detect, however, one area of disagreement, with which I shall deal later. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not take exception to what I shall say.
As for the substantial business of the evening, the issue is somewhat academic. There is no alternative. Indeed, there are no options. The Northern Ireland Act 1974 must be renewed. When we debate the other hardy annuals, the emergency provisions and prevention of terrorism legislation, hon. Members sometimes make the point that they wish different circumstances would prevail and that the day would come when renewal would no longer be necessary. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks, the same argument applies to the measure that is before us.
We look forward to the day when there need no longer be direct rule in Northern Ireland. We look forward, of course, to the time when the democratic deficit can be addressed positively by the establishment of acceptable forms of government in the Province. Whatever our analysis of the present situation in Northern Ireland, and whatever our personal future agendas on Northern Ireland, we can agree that, for the time being, there is no alternative but to renew the 1974 Act.
As for the present situation, from one point of view, as the saying goes, it is a case of "I think we'll have to think it out again"; it is time to go back to the drawing board. The bomb last Saturday certainly brought destruction to Manchester. It also blew apart many of the illusions that had dogged the so-called "peace" process for many months.
As I see things, we are, in a manner of speaking, back at base. In effect, we are starting out again. In that context, I shall make just three brief observations. I shall state them simply and then expand them. First, in prevailing or foreseeable circumstances, the Provisionals' participation in the process has come to an end. Secondly, the talks should continue without the Provisionals. Thirdly, we should revise our priorities; security issues should now share equal prominence with the search for political agreement between the constitutional parties.
First—regarding the Provisionals' participation in the process—it is, I contend, self-evident that the Manchester bomb has underlined and reinforced Sinn Fein-IRA's self-exclusion from the process. Both in prevailing and in


foreseeable circumstances it seems that that self-exclusion is now absolute. The leader writer in The Independent on Monday made the point when he wrote:
The whole point of this process as originally envisaged was that it included Sinn Fein and the IRA. It is very hard to see how they can be brought back for a long time.
The leader writer in The Guardian on the same day made precisely the same point:
There is no evidence that they
Sinn Fein—
can deliver peace, and plenty of evidence that they intend to continue with war. Unless and until that changes, there is no point in talking to them in the current process.
After the Manchester bomb and after the shooting of the Garda officers in the Republic, there should be no illusions. There is no place in a civilised society for Sinn Fein-IRA, let alone in negotiations seeking to create in Northern Ireland new relations based exclusively on non-violence and democracy. It beggars belief. In Northern Ireland, they have threatened, intimidated, tortured and murdered. In England, they bomb shoppers on a Saturday morning. In the Republic of Ireland they shoot policemen. At the same time, they have the audacity to claim that they want peace and to take the gun out of Irish politics. There is no place for such people in negotiations, and there never can be while that mind set prevails.
Mr. Adams says that he will not be deflected from the search for peace. Of course, if he is serious, he can begin immediately. He can unequivocally and unreservedly condemn those who planted the bomb in Manchester and those who murdered Garda Officer McCabe. He can publicly renounce, denounce and repudiate the IRA, but he will not do that. Unless he does, talk of "unauthorised" IRA operations and divisions within the Republican movement count for nothing, and Sinn Fein-IRA's self-exclusion will remain absolute.
Moreover, the renewing of a so-called "ceasefire" at some point in the future as the key to entry into negotiations is surely now woefully inadequate. The first point is that the Provisionals are out; we can regard their self-exclusion as absolute. The second point is that the talks must go on. Faced with the Provisionals' self-exclusion, there is a choice for the two Governments and the other parties: either to call it a day, pack their bags and go home, or to continue without Sinn Fein.
I strongly reject the argument that talks without Sinn Fein are not worth the candle. I welcome the Government's decision to press on, and I understand that that is the decision of the other parties as well. First, the primacy of importance that some commentators and politicians have hitherto given to Sinn Fein's participation has been misplaced. It is highly questionable that an agreement involving Sinn Fein was ever achievable. It is even more questionable now.
I do not believe that the Provisionals have ever been interested in compromise, and they are not interested now. They are not prepared to accept anything short of what can be sold to their supporters as a transitional package leading clearly and inevitably to a united Ireland; an irreversible step on the road to that united Ireland, regardless of the wishes of the majority of the people of

Northern Ireland. It is self-evident that such a transitional package would be unacceptable to all Unionists, both on the mainland and in Northern Ireland—and rightly so.
Secondly, talks without Sinn Fein are effectively a revival of the three-strand talks, the so-called Brooke initiative of 1991—I refer to my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke)—which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State resumed in 1992. On this, I have a slight difference of understanding from the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley, as I do not believe that the exercises were fruitless. He made a point about the breakdown on strand 1 issues. My understanding is that agreement was well and truly in sight but the Social Democratic and Labour party—I regret that no member of it is here to correct or answer me on this point—changed its position, to the surprise of others, at the last moment. I believe that it was possible during those talks—I believe that it is possible now—dimly to discern potentially promising areas of common ground and common thinking between Unionists and nationalists. I believe that it is worth exploring that ground again.

Sir James Molyneaux: I can set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. I was not implying that the talks were a complete failure, because, as he said, much ground work was done. The phrase used at the time, as the Secretary of State will remember, was that they were "banked". They are still there. The only difference between the hon. Gentleman and me is that I was far too delicate to apportion the blame to my neighbours from the SDLP, who are not here at the moment.

Mr. Hunter: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that clarification.
I was listing the reasons that I believe that negotiations, talks, without Sinn Fein should be pursued, and the last reason I have for holding that position is my belief that an agreement reached by the representatives of 85 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland is better than no agreement at all. The resolution of Northern Ireland's "democratic deficit" is highly desirable. Moreover, an agreement by the 85 per cent. on the form of Government within the Province and on the structures for communication and co-operation with the Republic would further isolate the men of violence. I argue that it is not unreasonable to hope that Unionists and constitutional nationalists can find substantial areas for agreement through negotiations. My second point, then, is that negotiations should proceed with Sinn Fein.
My third and final point is this. I believe that we should revise our priorities in an important respect. That is not a thought that I have previously shared with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, but I do not think that he will consider it heretical, because he alluded to much of what I believe in his opening remarks.
The reality is that the IRA is at war with the British and Irish people. Since 9 February, IRA active service units have planted no fewer than seven bombs on the mainland, and more can be expected. They have murdered two people, and they could have murdered many more. They have injured more than 300 people—I fear, scarring and psychologically traumatising some for life. The cost of repairing the damage by those bombs is in the region of half a billion pounds, and this campaign has not been as intensive as some in the past.
The IRA safely stores the greater part of its arsenal of weapons and explosives in the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. Thomas McAvoy: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what he means when he says that the IRA "safely stores" its arms in the Republic?

Mr. Hunter: We have reason to believe that the overwhelming majority of those arms remain undetected. Therefore, by definition, they are safely stored. The Garda have made a number of discoveries, and have caught IRA personnel in transit moving a minute proportion of the arms and explosives; but the greater part are safely stored, undetected.
There, in the Republic of Ireland, the IRA maintains various echelons of its command, or parts of them; it recruits and trains volunteers, as it does in Northern Ireland. Through robbery and other means, the IRA is raising funds in the Republic. It uses Irish ports to transport men and materials to this country. Most recently, it has murdered one Irish police officer and wounded a second. That state of affairs cannot be tolerated in either country, and it must not be tolerated. It calls for thought and action.
I stress that I do not advocate the proverbial emotive, knee-jerk response to terrorist activity or terrorist violence. That could be unwise, and could prove counter-productive. I do, however, advocate a fundamental review of security, which should receive as much detailed attention as is given to the search for political agreement between the constitutional parties. The review should be conducted jointly by the two Governments, because security measures are most effective if they are undertaken in that way. In the light of the common threat to the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland posed by the IRA, ideally we and the Irish Government would have a common security policy and a common security programme.
The right tone and tenor of such a security review would be assured if the two Prime Ministers led, as they have on political matters. In short, I believe that there is a case for a security summit, from which a common security policy and a common security programme could flow.
I certainly do not claim to be an expert on these matters, but I am aware of some areas in which, in the past, the Army, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and others have felt that improvements could be made. By that, I mean the conditions governing hot pursuit across the border from both sides; special operations within the Republic; cross-border communication between the respective police forces and armies at a tactical level; our use of Irish air space; and the gathering and exchange of intelligence, which is the ultimate weapon in the battle against terrorism. No doubt there are other areas of concern. I believe that they should be addressed as a matter of urgency. A fundamental review of our security could also consider that range of other measures that have been deployed against the IRA from time to time, such as the broadcasting ban, internment and a strategy for border crossing points.
The essential point, however, is that sovereign Governments must assure themselves, and must be able to assure their citizens, that everything possible is being done, first to protect people and property, and secondly to

enforce the rule of law. In the prevailing circumstances, it must be restated that security is our equal highest priority—hence the argument for a security summit to achieve maximum co-operation and joint action with the Irish Government.
Let me summarise my argument. The situation has changed, but it should not cause total despair. We now know where we stand. In prevailing and foreseeable circumstances, the Provisionals' self-exclusion from the process is absolute. The talks must go on, and hopefully an agreement can be reached. An agreement reached by the representatives of 85 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland is better than no agreement. We must revise our priorities, and refocus attention on security issues. In the context of an agreement between the constitutional parties, joint security measures could probably be implemented more effectively. Meanwhile, we must live with the Northern Ireland Act 1974 for a little longer.

Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I speak as a Labour member of the Northern Ireland Select Committee.
The nature of what we are discussing, and the inevitability of it, have already been mentioned, but I feel that particularly in the aftermath of the Manchester bombing and the murder of Garda McCabe, it would be useful for a Labour Back Bencher to describe the fury that is felt about those events. We have never supported, sympathised with or even hinted that we see any justification for violence. These latest terrorist atrocities are just the latest in a long line, but the timing is especially unfortunate. Everyone had hoped that we were heading towards a constitutional settlement in Northern Ireland at last, and hon. Members are particularly angry for that reason.
Direct rule is not the answer, as all hon. Members know, but it will be inevitable for as long as the present situation continues. The IRA maintains that it is fighting for a united Ireland and that it holds out the hand of friendship to Northern Ireland's Unionist population, but, as has been pointed out, what it did in Manchester poses a particular threat to investment. The IRA's threats of violence endanger the future economic development of Northern Ireland.
How can the IRA pose as the arbiter of an all-Ireland arrangement when it is damaging the very country that it professes to wish to unite? Let me put it in a more human way. Each person that the IRA kills or maims in Northern Ireland creates a group of people who are then not prepared—understandably—to listen to overtures of so-called peace from it. The IRA has created pools of bitterness by attacking and murdering people in Northern Ireland: that is its legacy. It aims to create a united Ireland, yet its actions are creating deeper divisions and are turning people against its cause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) and my right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party have the complete support of Labour Back Benchers when they say that the threats, intimidation and violence of the IRA will make no difference to how we conduct ourselves, not only in opposition but, I hope, in a year's time when we are in government. That isthe message of not only Labour Front Benchers but Labour Back Benchers.
The loyalist paramilitaries are setting an example of maturity and discipline. Men of past violence are now committed to the democratic process and have signed up to the Mitchell commission's six principles.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux), in yet another thoughtful speech, mentioned the principle of consent. The majority in Northern Ireland do not favour leaving the United Kingdom. I must say to the right hon. Gentleman and to my other friends on the Unionist Benches that, too often when they make speeches about consent, they leave out another aspect of the matter: that, if we are to have a system in Northern Ireland that has the broad consent of the majority of the people, the Unionist community must have the broad consent of the nationalist community to institutions and organisations in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar recognised that point in her speech.
The Unionist community has the strength of being in the majority, but I should like to see it take the high-profile position of being seen to offer the nationalist community consent and consensus, not just by rhetoric but by its actions. The Ulster Unionist party, the majority party representing the Unionist community, should be more open in extending the hand of friendship and negotiation to the nationalist community.
My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar made a point that I have made repeatedly in the past: the flashpoint of parades must be addressed. We broadly support the Government's stance, but I regret the fact that efforts have not been made to establish community consent for parades. The two communities in Northern Ireland recognise the desirability of parades, but it would help if there was a mechanism that allowed the communities to agree. I do not see the point of any organisation parading through an area where it knows that it is not welcome. The Secretary of State should establish some mechanism to secure consent in the communities for parades.
The position in Scotland has been mentioned, but it is different. Although there are differences of opinion on devolution or a Scottish assembly, there is no organised violence, and each side recognises that there are political differences. I agree with the principle of devolution.
I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Government on the co-operation and understanding that they have reached with the Irish Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar said, we make progress in the Northern Ireland-Ireland peace process when the British and Irish Governments take the same course, taking all political parties with them.
I have been mildly critical of the Ulster Unionist party, but I congratulate it on its professional and constructive attitude to the forum and the talks. Its example of being prepared not to surrender a point but to negotiate is a good one. It has reflected well the aspirations of the community it represents.
Another problem is the so-called punishment beatings, of which some loyalists are as guilty as the IRA. Who do these people think they are that they can be police, judge and executioner? They must be stopped.
The IRA's action in Manchester was a betrayal of the mandate it received in last month's elections. It sought a mandate on the basis of its participation in the peace process. As soon as it got that mandate, it betrayed it and returned to violence.
I do not agree that the IRA is a monolithic organisation with no nuances within it. There are differences of opinion; it is not quite as straightforward or simple as some folk say.
The House should send the message that violence and intimidation will not work, and will make no difference to the negotiations. If the IRA is genuinely seeking to represent its people—albeit only 15 per cent. of the population—it must declare a ceasefire and return to the peace process.
Everybody must know that the atmosphere in Northern Ireland during the ceasefire was first-class. People relaxed and felt that they could live a little without the fear of being killed. If the IRA wants a united Ireland, in the sense not of uniting bits of land but of two communities opposing violence and talking to each other, it should abandon violence, sign the six Mitchell principles and recognise that there is no future in its continued violence.

Mr. David Wilshire: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said that the original legislation that gives rise to tonight's order imposed temporary direct rule on Northern Ireland while a new way forward was sorted out. More than 20 years later, we are marking the passing of yet another 12 months and being asked to approve a further extension. It is not putting too fine a point on the matter to say that that is extremely depressing.
Some of us, sadly, also find it extremely predictable. I have a sense that things are worse rather than better. If we are ever to break that apparently never-ending sequence, we must take stock of the peace process. I share the belief of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) that things are fundamentally different since the Manchester bombing.
Where are we one year on, as we renew yet again this inevitable order? Direct rule is still with us, and I see no sign of it going away before we observe this ritual again next year. Local government in Northern Ireland is still virtually powerless, despite all-party co-operation being a daily fact of life in the council chambers of Northern Ireland.
If my right hon. and learned Friend cannot make progress with constitutional matters, he may find it worth while to examine local government powers as a one-off way of showing that democratic and peaceful co-operation between parties that believe in working with each other can deliver results. Progress in that direction need not be so controversial that it would bring the house down around us.
One year on, the peace process is still alive, but probably only just. In a strange way, that process may have been given a chance by the Canary Wharf and Manchester bombings rather than totally ruined, for one particular reason. Those two bombings, particularly Manchester, finally brought all democrats to their senses. Those two atrocities proved to me beyond doubt that one-sided concessions do not lead to permanent peace, and will never lead to justice. The bombings showed also that appeasing evil is not only degrading but achieves nothing.
We must compare the achievements of the British and Dublin Governments and Sinn Fein-IRA. That is an uncomfortable task, but essential if we are to understand


our position and make progress. I regret having to say that the British Government's achievements over the past 12 months make the most dismal reading—although I do not blame them. The most noticeable features that come to mind are £100 million of damage and a death at Canary Wharf and at least £100 million of damage in Manchester.
The Dublin Government have made significant progress of the sort that is deeply damaging to UK interests. During the past year, Dublin has established an effective veto over what is left of the peace process, as shown in the discussions leading to the all-party talks, and in the wrangling over Senator Mitchell. Now, the UK must obtain the agreement of a foreign Government before we can make any progress with our peace process, which appals me.
Regrettably, the achievements of Sinn Fein-IRA over the past year have been huge and—in their eyes at least—impressive, but in my eyes they are a total affront to the people of Northern Ireland. Over the past 12 months, Sinn Fein-IRA have bombed a date for talks out of the British and Dublin Governments. They have retained every one of their guns and every ounce of their explosives—apart from those used for tactical reasons. Sinn Fein-IRA have managed to drag an American president into a UK domestic matter, which has always been their aim. They have managed by their pressure and menace to foist on the people of the UK a foreigner as the chairman of all-party talks.
That is not all—not by any stretch of the imagination is that half of it. The worst thing is that, during the past year, and the year before, Sinn Fein-IRA have been able to re-equip, train, recruit and target the innocent virtually unhindered. When we started the peace process two years ago, Sinn Fein-IRA were demoralised, well and truly infiltrated, and effectively contained by the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the British Army. As I read it, at that time they were suing for peace. Two years later, Sinn Fein-IRA are revitalised and have reorganised. I say clearly and simply that we should be ashamed of ourselves for having allowed that to happen.
We must first admit, if we are to make progress, that we have been conned by Sinn Fein-IRA. Somehow—for reasons that commentators have tried to explain—we managed to persuade ourselves that Sinn Fein-IRA were willing to accept democracy and to fool ourselves that they had halted their violence and called a ceasefire. I totally agree with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke in his brave and deeply impressive speech.
Where is the evidence that Sinn Fein-IRA have become democratic? Only yesterday, Adams refused to say whether he is pressing his co-terrorists for a ceasefire. Only yesterday, Adams refused to repudiate an armed struggle. Only yesterday, Adams refused yet again to condemn the murder of a policeman in the Republic or the Manchester bombing.
It is crystal clear that Sinn Fein-IRA hold democracy in contempt. They always have. They have continued to do so during the peace process, and they always will. Where is the evidence that Sinn Fein-IRA have ever halted their violence or called a real ceasefire? The grisly list of mutilations and murders has continued growing day by day throughout the past year. The Canary Wharf and Manchester bombings confirm that the so-called ceasefire was nothing but a cynical and tactical ploy. The British

and Dublin Governments, never Sinn Fein-IRA, said that the ceasefire was permanent. We kidded ourselves into believing that, because we wanted to believe it.
Now that we know the Sinn Fein-IRA definition of a ceasefire, I sincerely hope that we finally understand that, if Sinn Fein-IRA were to reinstate their so-called "ceasefire", it would be nothing short of a sick joke. I sincerely hope that no one will ever again fall for that ploy. We must realise that another cynical declaration is far removed from what must happen if Sinn Fein-IRA are ever to be allowed to sit down with genuine democrats.
The second thing we must do when deciding where we go from here—in addition to being conned in the past year, and vowing that we will not let it happen again—is to realise that we are still trying to do the same thing. We are still trying to kid ourselves, to make ourselves feel a little more cheerful. I still hear people saying that they want to believe, and that they do believe, that Sinn Fein-IRA are made up of different organisations.
A few moments ago, I heard the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) suggest that Sinn Fein-IRA are perhaps not as organised as they might be. I still hear people wishfully thinking that there is a split in the IRA. But those are very dangerous fallacies.

Mr. McAvoy: For the record, I did not say that the IRA was not organised; I said that it was not monolithic. There is a difference.

Mr. Wilshire: I accept that. I was trying very hard not to suggest that the hon. Gentleman was necessarily caught up in some of my criticisms, but he gave me an opportunity to say that there are people who think in that way. I entirely accept his correction.
If anyone still doubts that Sinn Fein-IRA are other than one and the same, I invite them to consider the list of Sinn Fein-IRA representatives on the forum. Let us consider just three of them.
Sinn Fein is represented on the forum by a Mr. Gerry Adams. He is none other than the man who was a member of the IRA delegation that met Viscount Whitelaw. Mr. Adams—the Sinn Fein member of the forum—is none other than the Mr. Adams who has twice been interned for membership of the IRA.
Then there is his crony, Mr. McGuinness, who is another member of the forum representing Sinn Fein. We would do well to remember that Martin McGuinness was imprisoned in the Republic for membership of the IRA, and that, at his trial, he very proudly told the court that he was indeed proud to be the commander of the IRA's Londonderry battalion.
The third person on the list is Mr. Kelly. A Sinn Fein representative on the forum, he is none other than the Mr. Kelly who has served two life sentences for IRA bombings. Mr. Kelly was involved in the bomb attacks on the Old Bailey and on Scotland yard, and played his part in killing one person and injuring 250 others.
Those are the representatives of the so-called "different organisation"—Sinn Fein. Those three people were and remain members of Sinn Fein-IRA; the facts, the evidence and the their actions prove it. I hope that no one remains in any doubt about the reality of that organisation.
Sinn Fein-IRA will continue to portray themselves as two different organisations, and one has to accept that that is a very clever tactic. During the past year that tactic has


paid enormous dividends. As Sinn Fein, these killers have managed to obtain dozens of one-sided concessions from the peace process. Then, acting as real killers, these people—in the guise of the IRA—have obtained dozens more concessions by the tactical use of the bomb and the bullet. It is a clever tactic. It is a deliberate tactic. If we allow ourselves to be fooled, it will continue to work.
Where is the evidence for a split in the IRA? If anyone believes that there is a split, in my judgment, they base their belief on Sinn Fein-IRA propaganda, some of which we have recently heard. The callous murder of a policeman in Adare was by an IRA "rogue element", said the IRA. That is palpable nonsense. If the IRA murderers of that policeman were a rogue element, the police in the Republic would have found their corpses by now. They have not found any corpses because the murder was planned and executed properly, thoroughly and deliberately by the IRA. There is no split.
There are those who say that the Manchester bomb proved a split. The Manchester bomb was a tonne and a half of home-made explosives. It was not an impromptu expression of frustration by a few deranged people, and it was not done by breakaway people who are out of control. The Manchester bomb was carefully planned and part of a positive, deliberate and calculated policy. That policy has but a single objective: a united Ireland, on Sinn Fein-IRA's terms at any price.
The truth of Manchester is quite simply that, while Adams was posing for his propaganda photographs outside the gates of Stormont, his friends were busy putting a tonne and a half of fertiliser through a food mixer. That is not done in a few days; it takes a long time. While Adams was posing for his photographs, he knew that they had already planned to bomb on a Saturday morning in Manchester. It was callous, it was deliberate, and it proves that there is no split.
The third thing we must do when we decide where we go from here is to stop pandering to these evil people. The time really has come to call a halt to our dealings with Sinn Fein-IRA. That goes for the Dublin Government as well as for us. I must tell the Dublin Government that their rhetoric since the shooting of the policeman and the Manchester bomb has been fine. I applaud their rhetoric, but their decision to keep in touch with Sinn Fein-IRA is an affront to the bereaved and to the injured. I hope that the House deplores that decision.
The only message that Dublin should send to Sinn Fein-IRA, and the only message that we should send, is quite simple. It is: "No more talks; no more meetings; no more leaving doors open; no more keeping in touch, unless and until you in Sinn Fein-IRA renounce violence for ever, unless and until you show some remorse for your hideous crimes and unless and until you surrender—I say `surrender' not 'decommission': let us not mince our words—unless or until you surrender all your arms and explosives you, Sinn Fein-IRA, are outcasts, and the only contact you will now have with either of the two Governments, with any of us as politicians, or with the huge majority of decent ordinary people in Northern Ireland, is with our police and our armies as they track you down."
I agree wholeheartedly with the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke. A crackdown is necessary. One can deal with evil only by confronting it.
Clearly my main argument is that we need to come to our senses with regard to Sinn Fein-IRA, and to exclude it. But that in itself is not enough. I know that some of my colleagues would go even so far as to say that members of Sinn Fein-IRA should be instantly locked up, but I would not support that. Even if I did, that in itself would not be enough, either.
As well as coming to our senses and cracking down on Sinn Fein-IRA, we must have a positive policy for the future. We must make it clear that we know where we are going. That is why I support all the calls from both sides of the House and from all the other people who say that the peace process must continue. We must press ahead with talks between all genuine democrats, and with good will we must thrash out an agreement to which the Unionist parties and the SDLP can both sign up.
While we do that, we must take care to avoid three dangers. While making that progress, we must understand that the framework documents are non-starters. They are wholly unacceptable to the majority in Northern Ireland, because they represent a green agenda; they will not be entertained.
Secondly, those who participate in the talks over the coming year must understand that, in Northern Ireland, there remains and will remain a big majority who want to remain within the United Kingdom, so a united Ireland must not be on the agenda.
The third thing that must be understood both by the British Government and by the Dublin Government is that, at the end of the talks process, no solution can ever be imposed either by IRA violence or by Government coercion. There is no way in which a solution can be imposed without the wholehearted consent of the people of Northern Ireland.
I accept that securing that agreement will not be easy or quick. In my judgment, it will not be helped by Senator Mitchell or other foreigners interfering in our internal affairs. I fear that it may be accompanied by more violence. To those who may be tempted to suggest that what I say might all too often encourage violence, I reply that whatever way forward is chosen—be it the way that I advocate or the way that anybody else advocates—if it is a way that does not give in to terrorism, it will surely produce more violence. That we must accept and confront—but we must and can reach an agreement.
When we do, we must put that agreement to the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum. I believe that, if the Unionist parties and the SDLP back such an agreement, it is sure to secure a huge majority in a referendum. When we have that, we can legislate to end tonight's annual ritual.
If, when we have done all that, Sinn Fein-IRA continue with their violence, Dublin as well as the British Government will have a justification for interning their members, and that is what will have to happen. Having gone through the process of agreement. referendum and legislation, we shall be able to demand and expect that world opinion support us.
I believe that the people of Northern Ireland deserve better than never-ending direct rule. They deserve to feel confident that we have ended our attempts to appease


terrorists and to do deals with the devil. Above all else, they deserve to know that we in the House have a clear policy for giving them what they want above all else, which in my view is peace, justice and prosperity—three things that they have waited an enormous length of time to enjoy.

Rev. William McCrea: I am delighted to be able to follow the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). Many of the things that have been brought to our attention tonight are worthy of our most earnest consideration.
I entered the House in 1983, and since then, we have undergone the annual ritual, as we are once again this evening, of debating the interim period extension of the Northern Ireland Act 1974. Since 1973, I have served in local government in Northern Ireland, and I am still a member of a local district council. Unfortunately, we realise that the powers of such councils are practically nil. Consultation in reality means very little. The word "consultation" should never be included in any agreement if anyone wants it to mean something, as we have seen from the reality of consultative processes in Northern Ireland over the past 24 years.
Since entering the House in 1983, I have had the privilege of representing the constituency of Mid-Ulster, which has endured much due to terrorism. In recent days I have been delighted at the good news of the creation of 300 new jobs in Cookstown. I therefore express once again my appreciation to Baroness Denton, who has responsibility in the other place for economic development in the Province. She has put herself out there at the front in trying to gain employment for the people of the Province and I respect her for so doing.
Unfortunately, yesterday evening, after the good news of the 300 jobs in Cookstown, the town was closed off due to the threat of terrorism. That is the tragic reality. The people of my constituency have been held to ransom for many years because of terrorist thugs who have no intention of being part of society—except they rule it. They have no intention of entering the democratic process. Those who represent IRA-Sinn Fein on district councils insult democracy. One of them sat in the chair of the council on which I have served for 23 years and of which I was chairman last year, yet, up to this moment, never once has he condemned one act of terrorist violence by the IRA. Never once did he condemn the blowing up of our main street and economic centre in our town and district. Yet he has the cheek and the brass neck to take the post of chairman and try to project an image. What is the image of? It is an image of carnage, destruction, murder and vile atrocity. That is not what I believe that our district or our Province have a right to expect.
We are gathered here under the shadow of the gun and the bomb. We must face the reality of a police officer in the Irish Republic paying the ultimate sacrifice simply for being a member of that state's police force. I have no doubt that he played his part in seeking to bring peace to his community with diligence and excellence. I certainly join those who have sympathised with his wife and family circle.
Once again the people of Manchester on the mainland have endured the vile atrocity of a bomb. While it is true that one can put back together the buildings, having come

through such an experience with my family and in my home, I know that it will take longer to put back together the pieces of the people who have endured such a tragedy. On behalf of my constituents and the good people of Northern Ireland, I wish the people of Manchester godspeed in their recovery, and trust that not only the scars on their bodies will heal but the scars that are much deeper.
No one in the House can understand the devastation, heartache and heartbreak unless they have experienced the hurt and the pangs of suffering of those who have gone through the nightmare of terrorist violence. I thank God that most hon. Members have not known that experience, and I trust that they never will. The heartache being endured by those families is not diminished when they see representatives of murderers walking in the corridors of power across the world, accepted as if they were democrats.
I condemn and express my contempt for those who have carried out these dastardly deeds in the Irish Republic and, in recent days, in Manchester, but I wish also to commend the professionalism of the police. I trust that they know that their professionalism is deeply appreciated throughout the United Kingdom.
We must ask why the terrorists do this. It is difficult for anyone to enter the twisted mind of a terrorist or a terrorist organisation, but I do not believe that this could be called mindless terrorism. I do not believe that there is such a thing as mindless terrorism. There is a purpose behind their activity. There is an aim and an objective. We must ask what sort of objective there could be in the mind of anyone in a sane society for carrying out such dastardly, devilish and heinous deeds, whether at Canary Wharf or in Manchester?
I think that the Provisional IRA believes that it can shift the resolve of Governments to rule justly. I think that it believes that because it was a former Prime Minister who said of the Anglo-Irish agreement, that she signed it because she
could not allow the violence to continue.
Therefore, without the violence, there would have been no Anglo-Irish agreement.
Following that agreement we had the Downing street declaration and then the framework document. If ever any document gave cheer to the enemies of Ulster and the United Kingdom it was the framework document. They believed that they were progressing in a certain direction and that Governments listened to the bomb and the bullet. No matter how one tries to dress it up, it was a green and Republican document. It is resented by the vast majority of law-abiding and decent people in Northern Ireland. Anyone who does not believe that should ask the people and allow them to give their answer.
After 25 years of carnage, murder and destruction, what will the IRA have to do before it is dealt with effectively or told that there is no place in a civilised and democratic society for the bomb and the bullet? The IRA has received concession after concession. Despite that, the South Londonderry brigade of the IRA—it calls itself the South Derry brigade—made a statement at the weekend. It said:
The British Government have failed to deliver and have palmed us off for 20 months with schoolboy concessions.
I can assure the House that those who have watched those concessions being delivered to the provisionals on a silver plate do not believe that they were schoolboy concessions.
In fact, many in the republican movement jibed at the Unionist elected representatives and said—I quote one of them:
When will your English overlords know that you can't buy us off?
What was termed a peace process, and the announcement, and the glitter and media attention of a ceasefire, was nothing but a cynical farce—but of course it achieved much for Adams. It got him into the United States. Senator Mitchell was one of those who signed the document to get him there. It even got him into the White House. He sat down with the leader of the western world, and there was Adams—a terrorist, a representative of murderers—sitting, dining with Presidents.
Those who have dined with Adams and McGuinness should be ashamed of themselves, because, instead of their gaining peace, Adams gained a certain respectability and was taken in, walking the corridors of power, paraded across the world—and all the time it was a farce.
There were those who realised it—realised that the leopard had not changed its spots. Gerry Adams would never have been known of, if not for the power of the bombs and the bullets of the IRA. Who would have listened to Gerry Adams? What would he have been? It was not his authority in speech or his oratory in delivery; it was the power of the weaponry of terrorism. Because of it, Adams was received. Although he was carrying out a totally dishonest campaign, Adams and McGuinness and the republican hierarchy led democratic Governments a merry dance.
They are still doing it. Mr. Clinton is keeping his contacts open. The Prime Minister of the Irish Republic is keeping his contacts open. They must be maintained. That is an insult to democracy.
We are currently witnessing, on one hand, the pressure exerted by the terrorists, and, on the other, Adams working and using the media to project an image as though he were the dove. Some Members of the House may be gulled, and why not? Were they not conned when they walked him into this, the Palace of Westminster, stood on platforms with him and presented him as though he were some democrat who had fallen out of heaven, while he represented a cold-blooded murder machine that murdered many of my constituents?
Although we may con ourselves, the provisional IRA are recruiting, restocking and retraining at this moment. Yet we were told, "All it will take will be a ceasefire; the doors of Stormont buildings will magically open, and in, sweeping through the gates with his republican entourage, will be the acceptable Gerry Adams."
I say on behalf of my party that Gerry Adams was unacceptable last year, he was unacceptable last week, before the bomb, and he still is unacceptable after the bomb. Gerry Adams has not changed; Martin McGuinness has not changed, either. In a previous but similar debate, I mentioned the names of those who comprise the army council of the IRA. I should like to know what action has been taken against them. Since that debate, several television programmes have openly named them, too, and described the positions of authority on the army council that they hold. Are these people—whether in the Irish Republic or the United Kingdom—above the law? Are

they beyond the law? Why cannot they be lifted and brought to justice? Many of them have carried out the most heinous crimes imaginable.
Now the talks have begun, and I have been elected both as a negotiator and as a member of the forum. Many people in Northern Ireland do not understand why representatives of a foreign Government parade up the steps to those buildings day by day. The elected representatives of the Province have in the past had much in common. During the previous set of talks a sub-committee was set up, comprising the SDLP, the Ulster Unionists, the Democratic Unionists and the Alliance party. It was charged with looking into a way of administering the Province by means of devolved government, to deal effectively, justly and fairly with the day-to-day affairs affecting all the people of Northern Ireland.
The papers describing those meetings have not yet been released, but I can tell the House that the parties reached an agreement—or nearly did. Many have applauded the leader of the SDLP in recent times, but it was he who prevented an agreement from being reached. He alone of all the delegated members would not allow that body to succeed. He should be condemned for that.
At the beginning of the current talks we were told that we had to accept Senator Mitchell—whether one likes it or not, he is a foreigner—as chair of the opening plenary. He was imposed on the elected representatives there because the SDLP and the Irish Government would not allow anyone else to chair the session. It appears that no one else in the world would be acceptable to them. The reason, of course, is that Senator Mitchell is Clinton's envoy. He signed the papers allowing Gerry Adams into the United States; now he is Clinton's man, sent to get Gerry Adams into the talks.
The principle of consent has been mentioned in the debate. On this occasion, no consent was sought and no consent was given by the elected representatives of the community to Senator Mitchell's acting as the supremo among the independent chairmen.
I believe it important that the talks succeed, but only if the outcome is freely negotiated among the parties.
When one looks at the documents that were presented as a basis for the inter-party talks, one notes that the Union was mentioned as a matter worthy of discussion, but that articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution were missing and not mentioned. The IRA has used the obnoxious and immoral articles 2 and 3 as one of its main planks and justifications for the murder and destruction of the people of the United Kingdom.
I make an appeal to Her Majesty's Government: the people of Northern Ireland want to see our Government championing the cause of the Union, of the United Kingdom, across the world. Northern Ireland is a vital part, and it ought to be a vital part, of the Union. The Government should fight tooth and nail to ensure that Northern Ireland remains a part of the United Kingdom—just as Scotland and Wales remain a part of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) mentioned a united representation in relation to the beef crisis. There was a special case for Northern Ireland in that crisis, and I regret that it was not presented as a special case in Europe. Northern Ireland could have led the United Kingdom out of the morass in relation to the BSE crisis.


The hon. Lady referred to the bureaucracy in the health service. I inform the Secretary of State that the community is concerned about the 3 per cent. cash reduction in health service finances—and this reduction occurred after 14 years of cuts and cash reductions. Efficiency savings cannot continue without damaging the service to the people. Therefore, I appeal to Her Majesty's Government to reinstate the cash that has been taken away from the health service budget and to allow the health service to be an excellent service, as it has been in the past.
The hon. Lady said that a Labour Government would raise the issue of the police. I have talked to many members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. She said that we must deal with the make-up of the RUC. There is no reason why members of the minority communities are not represented in the RUC—it is a fair and efficient force. The door is open for all applicants, and it would serve the Church leaders and the politicians of the minority community better if they encouraged their people to join the RUC.
One thing concerns my constituents in relation to changing the make-up of the RUC. Those who have served in the RUC to this present moment may be from one community, but we must remember that they have faced 25 years of the most horrific violence. They have had courage when no one else has had courage—they stood in the gap when no one else had the courage to do so. They find it rather insulting that, after they have fought the battle, and after—God willing—the battle has been won, they are going to be told, "Thank you for your courage, thank you for your determination, thank you for your sacrifice, thank you for the lives of some of your colleagues, but it is thank you and goodbye." If a Labour Government were to pursue such a policy, I assure hon. Members that it would be opposed and resented by the vast majority of the good people who have been served by an excellent police force during very difficult times.

Mr. Tony Worthington: I shall deal immediately with the point raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea). He addressed his comments about the police to my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam). If he had read our consultation paper, he would know that we do not say any such thing. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will admit that he has read the paper and that we do not make the remarks he alleges about the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

Rev. William McCrea: I have read the paper and listened to the debate tonight. I cannot understand how a Labour Government would dramatically change the make-up of the Royal Ulster Constabulary without sacking many of its serving members.

Mr. Worthington: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging, in his own way, that we do not say what he alleged in our consultation paper. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman could not have admitted it more graciously.
Sadly, tonight's debate has been dominated by the horror of the Manchester bombing. Many people have been scarred for life, both physically and mentally,

because they made the simple mistake of being in Manchester city centre at the wrong time on Saturday. I extend our sympathy to those who were the innocent victims of zealots.
We must judge the events not just by their consequences, but by their intentions. It is simply miraculous that we are not today expressing anger and grief at the loss of dozens—perhaps hundreds—of lives in the past few months. The Canary wharf bombing could have resulted in many more deaths than two and the Hammersmith bridge and Manchester bombs were intended to kill and to cause disruption on a massive scale. The IRA must be judged by its intentions—to kill many hundreds of innocent people in the past few months.
I congratulate the police and other services on reducing the intended carnage. I congratulate them also on the early progress that they have made in detecting those responsible. In the days and months ahead, it is crucial that the British and Irish Governments present a united front in responding to the challenges posed by the bombings. The business of keeping the British and Irish Governments together will not be assisted by the disparaging use of words such as "foreigner".
The killing of an Irish policeman sent shock waves around the Republic of Ireland as people realised that those who claim to be fighting for Ireland have a horrible and different vision of what Ireland would be. The Labour party rejoiced in the recent visit of President Robinson—I cannot think of anyone less deserving of the description foreigner. Her response to the weekend's events had more force for me than any other. She said that the bombing had left her "shocked, sickened and numbed." She said that she felt angry that it had been done supposedly on behalf of
an Irishness that has nothing to do with the Irishness that I stand for as President of Ireland".
The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) referred to the questions that have been put to the IRA. He should have added that those two brutal, straight questions have been put by the Irish Government. They asked, first, whether Gerry Adams had asked the IRA for a restoration of the ceasefire and, if not, why not. What politician for peace could not answer that question immediately? Secondly, the Irish Government asked whether Sinn Fein continues to support the "armed struggle" of the IRA.
It is totally unconvincing for Adams to say that he accepts the Mitchell principles on behalf of Sinn Fein while failing to condemn the Manchester bombing. As John Bruton has said, the hypocrisy must end and the straight talking must begin. If the two countries, the two Governments and the two Parliaments stand together, we may eventually solve the problems in a peaceful and democratic way.
I listened with respect to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) when he talked about security. He talked sense about the necessity for the two Governments to take a joint view of security and to act jointly against terrorism, but we will not achieve what is in effect a cross-border institution, which is what the hon. Member urged upon us, unless we manage to keep the two Governments together. Such a cross-border institution would be of infinite value if it provided a joint attitude to the holding of arms and to terrorism.
If it had not been for the bomb, we would have debated more fully tonight the events at the all-party talks and the forum. Those taking part in those talks and in that forum


have a huge duty to demonstrate to the people of Northern Ireland that democracy can and does work. Every time posturing and grandstanding is displayed before us, we know that the only beneficiaries are the enemies of democracy. I found it much more encouraging today to read in the Belfast Telegraph about the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) praising the recent contribution of the Democratic Unionist party to the talks. The hon. Member is quoted as saying:
I think we are seeing a significant shift in the way things are being done.
It is also encouraging to read the words of the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office—I fully understand why he is not in his place tonight—who said:
We've had a most constructive engagement over the last few days. That engagement is producing results and I find progress that's being made encouraging.
It is crucial that all the people involved in those talks encourage the thought that progress will be made by democratic means. The Opposition believe that a solution is attainable, but it requires good will and trust, and those who seek verbally to destroy good will and trust condemn Northern Ireland to a restless and disturbed future.
The Opposition want to end direct rule. Everybody who has spoken has said that we must end direct rule, and we are all uncomfortable with the present situation. The way in which legislation for Northern Ireland is processed in the House is an affront to democracy that we wish to end. At the moment, we simply do not do justice to the people of Northern Ireland who wish to live in a free and open society where major issues of public policy are debated and consulted upon and are subject to the democratic will of the people of Northern Ireland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar mentioned issues such as agriculture, electricity and employment, and other hon. Members have mentioned health. I would add to that list the area that is my sphere of responsibility—education. Government policies for education are not being presented or examined coherently or fairly, and perhaps cannot be in the framework of direct rule. The people of Northern Ireland lose through that. First, the education and library boards face a funding crisis that is affecting the quality of the education of the children of Northern Ireland.
As a consequence of Government decisions and the allocation of resources, about 300 teachers were made redundant last year. I found that figure by ringing round the education and library boards and the trade unions. I should have been able to find that figure by asking the Government but, unbelievably, in response to a parliamentary question, the Minister could not tell me how many teachers were made redundant in a Province of 1.6 million people. We can imagine the anger in an English or Scottish local authority of similar size if the chair of the education authority did not know the consequences of his policies.
This year, the situation threatens to be even worse, as the Government try foolishly to cut education for tax cuts that may not be delivered. The Southern board forecasts that its schools cannot survive without further redundancies in the current year. It will seek to release 60 to 70 teachers through redundancies. The North Eastern board received an increase in its block grant of a mere

1.62 per cent., which is well below the rate of inflation. The consequences for 1996–97 will be 85 redundancies, of which 13 have already been made compulsory. In addition, much capital building work has had to be abandoned. Maintenance work has had to be curtailed to the extent that, in the board's words, it is "virtually non-existent". There are already larger class sizes and increases in the pupil-teacher ratio. Special needs services have been curtailed.
We must ask the Government why that has happened. It is a sign of the inadequacy of direct rule that we must use the Chamber as a forum for discussing such matters.
In the relatively small further education sector, 229 full-time lecturers' jobs have been made redundant since 1990. That is an average of 13 full-time staff per college. We should remember that the Government's skills audit of last week revealed that, in the FE sector, the entire nation was deficient. That, of course, includes Northern Ireland. Why do we continue to retrench and make cuts in an area where we are competitively at our weakest?
Another area in which the Government are not serving the needs of the people of Northern Ireland is nursery education. The Government, if time does not run out on them, will impose the voucher initiative. Northern Ireland desperately needs good-quality nursery education that can help boost a child's achievement throughout life, but that is not what is proposed through the voucher initiative. It will not buy good-quality education. The system will be of most use to a well-off person seeking a subsidy for private child care. It will be of least use in a deprived area where there is not enough money to provide extra spaces in the local primary school.
Extra resources should go first to those most in need, but the Government break that rule. The people of Northern Ireland, including teachers, have made it clear when talking to me that they want first-rate nursery education, not second-rate vouchers. There is no scope within direct rule to insist that Northern Ireland enjoys first-rate nursery education.
There is another area of education in which the Government are imposing dogma. The FE colleges of England, Wales and Scotland have been incorporated. Three years later, without any rationale to support the move, without any policy document and without any proposal setting out what the role of FE should be, the colleges in Northern Ireland are to be incorporated.
My experience of FE in Northern Ireland is that it is in a sad and leaderless state. At the same time, the Government's skills audit suggests that FE colleges should be playing a leadership role in Northern Ireland.
In England, Scotland and Wales, education and employment have been brought together. That has not happened in Northern Ireland. No rationale has been put forward to explain why it has not occurred. If colleges are to be incorporated, is there to be a funding council for FE, one for FE and higher education, or no funding council at all? Nothing has been said about that. What is to be the mission of FE in Northern Ireland? What is supposed to be the relationship between the Training and Employment Agency, FE and the Department of Education in Northern Ireland? Again, not a word has been said about that. That is not adequate.
We all hope for peace, and are perhaps willing to take a risk for peace, but in other respects we could be doing better. To do so, the Government must get on top of the issues that require attention.


Direct rule will be continued today with a heavy heart. We are all aware of the quality of government and political life in Northern Ireland. I feel almost apologetic for raising issues such as education in this place. In terms of Northern Ireland, the House is dominated by talk of bombs and constitutional matters. Over about 20 years of direct rule, real politics have receded. People have stopped talking about education and health issues. They have stopped talking about the very matters that impact on people's everyday lives in Northern Ireland.
We must find a way forward. Over the next few months, and perhaps years, we have a duty to find a way in which the quality of public life in Northern Ireland can be improved so that we in this place do not have to meet in these regrettable circumstances every year. When I meet the people of Northern Ireland, I am convinced of their wish to live together under a mutually fair society. It is our duty as political leaders to make that possible for them.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The quality of the debate has justified its extension to three hours. Last year, we had only an hour and a half. The debate has been wide-ranging and has been both general and particular. The easiest way for me to attempt to do justice in summing up the debate in the 15 minutes or so that remain to me is to concentrate on general matters and then deal with particular matters. I shall try to deal with each of the speeches that we heard.
I take great encouragement from the fact that no right hon. or hon. Member who spoke did other than express support for the process of political talks. Everybody who spoke wished to see the process of political talks to be a success. It is true that some thought them more realistically ambitious than others. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) believes that it is right to begin at a low level, not on a high wire—a phrase with which those of us who count ourselves his friends are well familiar—and work upwards, and much can be said for that.
Nobody has said that the future can be determined other than by the process of talking and reaching an agreement.

Rev. McCrea: indicated assent.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I see the hon. Gentleman nodding in his place as I say that.
Again there has been—I suppose that it is a corollary of the same point—total agreement that a solution cannot be imposed. The record of British Governments, English Governments over the centuries seeking to impose solutions on the misguided affairs of Ireland and Irish people—as they seemed at that time—is not particularly encouraging. I take heart from the common position that emerges from the debate.
There was another common position: the total condemnation of what has occurred; of what happened in Manchester; and of the notion that a Government of a democracy can be made to change their policies by the threatened use of violence.
I listened with particular care to what my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said and was sorry to hear him say that he looked back over the past two years and the attitude of the Government—who from

time to time he has supported—with shame. I feel that he failed to recognise some of the facets of the problems that have faced us, which are important.
It is true that Sinn Fein-IRA are different sides of the same coin, as the Prime Minister said yesterday. It is true that our ambition to see Sinn Fein as an elected party with a substantial vote, able to be represented and taking a part in the talks process has been disappointed. It has not removed its self-exclusion, and that is disappointing. It was our hope that it would. But I do not think that there is any ground for shame at all in Her Majesty's Government having sought to help it to achieve that.
I acknowledged, in response to an intervention by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) at the beginning of the debate, that, in some respects, the Government's position had changed during the past 18 months, particularly on decommissioning. I acknowledged that, not on a point of principle but on a point of management. I realised that that would expose us to the charge of appeasement. That is not a charge that I believe to be justified, but I do not think that it is a ground for shame.
Let me say to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne that, if we had to have a Manchester attack—of course, we did not—I would think it advantageous for that attack to result in Sinn Fein-IRA's being condemned without any qualification all around the world. I have heard no one say, "Of course it is reprehensible, but you must see that they have some legitimate grievances." We have all heard that in months and years gone by. It has been said time and again: "If only you had understood the difficulties—if only you had not been such wooden-headed English, so ignorant of Irish nationalist sensitivities." I ask right hon. and hon. Members who are present tonight if they can identify a single person anywhere who has said, "You have to understand it. The British Government could have avoided it."
That has been, as it were, the negative objective that Her Majesty's Government have had. We have, of course, had a positive objective: we have wanted the process of talks, which every hon. Member who has spoken supports, to be truly inclusive of all parties with a democratic vote or mandate. That has been the positive objective, for the obvious reason that, if we are to carry the process through to an agreement which, in turn, will be put by referendum to the people of Northern Ireland and the Republic respectively and separately, it will have a better chance of sticking if it has the support of all parties.
I have not, however, been so unrealistic as to underestimate the prospect of failure. Against that event, Her Majesty's Government have had the negative objective of peeling away from those who rely on violence to secure their political ends any support that they have previously had for violence in a democracy.
I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) for the two Governments' insistence on the restoration of the ceasefire. Manchester last Saturday showed the wisdom of that. I also welcome her recognition that, if the talks cannot be fully inclusive, they should at least retain the objective of inclusivity.
Let me diverge for a moment to the speech of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley. He took us to task for supposing that it was necessary in all circumstances to have all-party support for any outcome of the talks. That is not our position. Of course such an outcome is


desirable, but we have always taken the view, and take the view today, that in any talks process it is the participants who are the masters of the proceedings. If the participants in the process that has now begun conclude that there is a measure of agreement, or any proposal less than unanimity that shall be acceptable, it is well within their remit so to decide, and for agreement to be implemented.
I must exercise confidentiality, but I have good reason to suppose that parties who object to a particular policy within that process would, as good democrats, accept the outcome. It is not a question of saying that everything must be supported by everyone participating in the talks. That would be unrealistic, and would impose a virtually unsustainable condition in many instances.
I must be selective in choosing which parts of hon. Members' speeches I shall deal with. The hon. Member for Redcar mentioned marches. In a democracy, people have the right to parade, demonstrate or express views publicly and peacefully, and I know that she recognises that. In the same way, people have a right to show what they think if they disagree, provided they do so peacefully. The issue of parades is a difficult one, as are so many things in the contemporary scene in Northern Ireland.
We are constantly seeking ways of reducing the prospects of confrontation, but there must be a spirit of compromise. In many instances, what one might describe as the loyalist institutions have shown that willingness to compromise and take a different route. The willingness to compromise has not been evident in Sinn Fein, which organised opposition to the parades and marches. We must be careful not to undermine the Chief Constable's operational responsibility for maintaining law and order, which is why it is not quite the simple proposal that people suggest when they say, "Surely it would be better to have a nice advisory committee." There are many difficulties, but we keep the matter under review. I have it much under review with the Chief Constable and the Deputy Chief Constable, Mr. Flanagan.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley spoke of the principle of consent underlying everything. That must be right in our democracy; it must be central to the viability of any outcome to the process. I welcome what he said: that the principle of consent exists in terrorists' vocabulary only as the kind of consent that people can be terrorised into giving. We are not in the business of permitting terrorisation; genuine consent must be the basis of everything.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley spoke of a new all-party committee of both Houses of Parliament to bolster the work of my right hon. Friend Lady Denton, and I acknowledge that he has been urging this for a long time. He raised the matter in the House as recently as last week's appropriation debate. My right hon. Friend the

Minister of State will write to him about it, but the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, which I wish to see extend its jurisdiction and capabilities, and the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs are available to discuss economic matters generally.
Although the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley made many enticing remarks on which I should like to comment, in the interests of time I must move on to speeches that followed. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), in a most interesting speech, said that it is time for a fundamental rethink and for a security summit. There is much to be said for a review of security co-operation by the two Governments. I said in opening that we shall base our position on the excellent security co-operation that we have at present.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke mentioned four matters: hot pursuit, co-operation, Irish air space and the sharing of intelligence, all of which should be addressed. There was much merit in his comments, which I shall refer to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and no doubt much will pass between the two Governments in seeking to improve the already excellent co-operation.
My hon. Friend said that the situation should not cause total despair. I do not want to be pedantic when I say that it should not cause any level of despair at all. It should cause renewed analysis, clarity of analysis and, if possible, greater resoluion.
I very much agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) about the influence of terrorism on the economy because of the jobs that are damaged. The other side of the coin is that the more jobs there are, the less opportunity terrorists have to lure young people in particular into their toils.
I will move quickly over the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, much of which I could agree with—but I have disagreed in particular with the analysis that he offered. I have also addressed the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster.
I will invite the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who has responsibility for education in Northern Ireland, to write to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on some of the matters that he raised. We have five education and library boards in a Province that has a population of 1.6 million. When we propose reducing that number to four, our ears are beaten about by people who say, "How dare you do such a thing?" That is a little obstacle to saving some money. This has been a valuable debate—

It being 10 o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [7 June].

Question agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period) Order 1996, which was laid before this house on 4th June, be approved.

TRIBUNALS OF INQUIRY (EVIDENCE) ACT 1921

Motion made, and Question put,

That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say, the abuse of children in care in the former County Council areas of Gwynedd and Clwyd.—[Mr. Burns.]

Hon. Members: Object.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

COMPANIES

That the Companies (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 1996 (S. I., 1996, No. 1444), dated 5th June 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th June, be approved.—[Mr. Burns.]

Question agreed to.

BUILDING SOCIETIES

That the draft Building Societies Act 1986 (Continuance of Section 41) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 5th June, be approved.—[Mr. Burns.]

Question agreed to.

Environmental Information

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]

10 pm

Mr. Matthew Taylor: This is not the first time that the importance of ensuring that the public have access to environmental information has been discussed in the House. The Government have previously indicated their agreement, at least in principle. The European Union directive on freedom of access to information about the environment has been implemented by means of the Environmental Information Regulations 1992, but a major deficiency is that they lack a specific enforcement mechanism.
More than three years ago, in July 1993, the Government's command paper on open government promised to introduce a new statutory right of access to health and safety information modelled on the regulations. It was suggested that the new right could be enforced by a tribunal and that it could deal also with complaints made under the regulations. Although there have been three Queen's Speeches since the publication of the White Paper, and although the legislative programme has not been onerous on the Government, there has been no sign of implementing that proposal.
The matter was re-examined during the passage of the Environment Bill in 1995. Last March, Viscount Ullswater stated in the other place:
I fully agree with the wish … to make sure that people have adequate rights of redress under the regulations. Indeed, that is specifically required of member states by the directive.
The EC directive on freedom of access to information on the environment—to which the Government have signed up—states:
It must be possible for the applicant for environmental information to appeal against the public authority's decision.
Viscount Ullswater added:
Powers to create an environmental, health and safety tribunal would be included in legislation to create the health and safety access right, when parliamentary time is available."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 March 1995; Vol. 562, c. 516.]
In Committee on the Environment Bill, I introduced an amendment to allow for the creation of a specialist tribunal that could hear disputes over the provision of the access to environmental information. The Minister anticipated
soon being in a position to create a dual-purpose tribunal that will be included in legislation to create the proposed health and safety access. Of course there is the caveat of parliamentary time, but I understand that work is now under way to deal with some of the difficulties that have been considered … It is well in hand."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 13 June 1995; c. 667.]
Given that the Minister insisted eight months ago that work was well in hand, perhaps the Under-Secretary replying tonight will explain whether we are any closer to establishing an environmental information tribunal. The answer appears to be no.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was questioned about the delay when he appeared before the Select Committee for Administration in January. He replied:
A commitment was given, a promise was made, we have not delivered it so far and I want those promises honoured.


It appears that the Government are happy to agree that an environmental information tribunal is needed, and are happy to give assurances that one will be created as soon as possible. But they are less happy to give a firm timetable as to exactly when a tribunal will be established, let alone accept my amendments to create one.
In the meantime, the public are denied access to a proper enforcement mechanism under the environmental information regulations, and to health and safety information. It is important to understand that, because the Government have said that the proposed right to health and safety information will not apply retrospectively, information that is now being gathered will not be accessible even when—or if—the new legislation is enacted. The longer the delay, therefore, the more information that may be withheld permanently from the public.
It may be asked whether there is reason for concern at the delays, and it may be suggested that it is not important that the delay is occurring. The fact is that the privatised water companies have refused to provide information, and British Gas has refused to provide information about contaminated lands. Railtrack even denied that the regulations applied to it, even before privatisation.
The Government have so far refused to issue further guidance, and they insist that it is for the courts to decide who is covered by the regulations. In the absence of a tribunal, that is essentially forcing people to go through expensive and possibly lengthy court proceedings—during which time the information loses its value—if they are to get any further.
An example from my own area are the efforts, with which I have occasionally helped, of the south-west solicitors Toller Beattie. They have asked for information and correspondence received from South West Water to the Department of the Environment. That information related to the delay to four bathing water schemes in the south-west and to the process under which the provisional list of sensitive areas was reduced while the list of less sensitive areas was increased—an extremely sensitive issue in the south-west.
The Department of the Environment gave a formal refusal, on the grounds that much of the information that was sought related to the confidential deliberations of the group that worked out which areas were sensitive and which were less sensitive under the urban waste water treatment directive. Further correspondence that was later produced showed that the information held had not even been considered by that group.
Surely the public have the right to know on what basis an area of bathing water has been declared sensitive, and therefore whether it may or may not be cleaned up. Surely a water company that may or may not be polluting that water should not have the right to withhold such information from the general public whom it serves.
So is there an effective alternative to a tribunal—something already in existence? The fact is that getting environmental information is difficult, and success is by no means guaranteed. There is an internal review, and internal reviews have a useful role to play in some circumstances. However, there will always be cases in which someone requesting information is thwarted, particularly if the

release of information might be embarrassing to the people holding it. That is why an internal review can never be a substitute for a truly independent tribunal.
The ombudsman may also have a role, but the post of ombudsman was created for the purpose of investigating maladministration, and the ombudsman may not rule in cases in which legal rights are under consideration and there is recourse to the judicial process. Even when examining maladministration, the scope of the ombudsman is limited by statute.
Moreover, the ombudsman currently has jurisdiction over only a limited number of organisations, only has discretionary powers of review rather than a duty, he conducts investigations in private, his decisions are not legally binding, and there is no set time period for review. That is a situation which is likely to lead to delaying tactics by those holding information against those who are quite justifiably seeking that information, particularly when making it available quickly may be at the root of the issue at hand.
It is true that the courts may provide an alternative, and, in a few instances, it may be possible to argue that there has been a breach of statutory duty. It is not clear, however, whether that remedy is available in all cases. Any plaintiff in such an action will probably need to show that he or she has suffered some kind of damage, which could be exceptionally hard to demonstrate if denial of information is the issue. If one does not have the information, how can one show the damage?
There are also limitations on the right to bring an action for breach of statutory duty—for example, where actions are brought against Ministers. In such cases, the only means of compelling a public body to comply is by judicial review, a remedy that is too expensive and time-consuming for ordinary citizens, and too time-consuming for it always to be useful even to many who could afford it.
Moreover, judicial review is an inappropriate remedy for many of the complaints that arise under the regulations. It is not an effective means of challenging whether an authority has wrongly withheld information under one of the discretionary exemptions in the regulations—if the information is commercially confidential, for example—because the court will not substitute its discretion for that of an authority.
The truth is that the only suitable forum for solving such problems would be an environmental information tribunal. The Government have conceded the advantages of a tribunal for that purpose, and have said in the past that they have no objection in principle to creating one. However, those statements must be thrown into doubt by their lack of action, which is already making a material difference to those who seek such important information.
The advantages of a tribunal set up specifically to ease the flow of environmental information, and incidentally to ensure that this country meets its international obligations, are clear. First, it would be a truly independent body, favouring neither side in a dispute. Information could be reviewed in camera, and the independent body could decide whether it should be withheld on grounds of commercial confidentiality. That is an important point.
As an example of what happens as things stand, in one case the Health and Safety Executive responded by saying that it would
have to accept the manufacturer's view


that information requested about the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1984 might be confidential. Such an attitude leaves it entirely in a company's hands to decide whether the public can have access to environmental information that it holds, which may be extremely important to those individuals.
Obviously there should be a requirement for cases to be reviewed within a specified time scale, which would mean that the timing of the release of information could not be manipulated to limit its impact, and delaying tactics could no longer be used with impunity. Decisions would, of course, be binding, and subject to appeal only within the current court system on a point of law. A body of precedents would eventually be established,, which would help to increase the flow of information to the public.
An environmental information tribunal should also have discretion over the payment of costs in particular cases, which should include the possibility of some cases being publicly funded, in the public interest.
The central point of the debate is that the Government have agreed that in theory there is a legal right to information, guaranteed under the EC directive on freedom of access to information on the environment, which the Government say they support. The public now have a theoretical right of access to environmental information, yet in reality, as we have seen with South West Water and several other bodies throughout the country, they can effectively be denied information about pollutants that may be affecting them personally.
The only remedy that I can think of is an environmental information tribunal, and I believe that Ministers have accepted that fact. I hope that tonight we can take a step forward, looking perhaps towards the Queen's Speech in the autumn. I hope that the Minister will now give a firm commitment and a fixed timetable for establishing such a tribunal.
As the Government have already revealed their sympathy for the idea of such a body, and as the concept has broad support, surely there is no reason to procrastinate further. We know that, unless they intend to announce a change of mind tonight, the Government support the idea, and we understand that Ministers are sympathetic to it. Indeed, through our international obligations, they have already signed up to the idea of the tribunal. So where is it?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I should make it clear at the outset that the Government have a commitment to openness and making environmental information available to the public. We have a good record over many years of doing just that.
National legislation has created more than 50 statutory public registers containing environment information. The Department of the Environment has listed them in a booklet, "Environment Facts: a guide to using public registers of environmental information", which was published in 1995. Public registers are a helpful way in which to provide access to environmental information. Potential users are made aware of what information is available and where it can be inspected, and they are not charged for it.
The Government also provide a wide range of more aggregated information in a variety of publications about the state of the environment and the factors that

impinge on it. The Department of the Environment publishes an annual "Digest of Environmental Statistics", which brings together a wide range of information drawn from a large number of more detailed reports. That is supplemented by a periodic publication, "The UK Environment", which is broader in coverage, less technically oriented and aimed at a wider audience, especially schools and further education establishments. The next edition will be published in 1999.
This year, we are also introducing a new pocket-sized booklet that provides key facts about the environment. A pilot edition was produced for internal use in 1995. I shall let the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) have copies of it and a number of other publications that I am sure he will find interesting.
In March, the United Kingdom became one of the first countries to publish a set of indicators of sustainable development, which illustrates changes over the past 20 years or so in some 120 key issues and objectives. They are a preliminary set of indicators, on which we want to obtain views so that they can be developed further. In the longer term, we intend to use them to highlight key messages and monitor our performance against our stated objectives in the sustainable development strategy.
The indicators have been widely welcomed at home and abroad as a manifestation of our commitment to open reporting. It may also interest the hon. Member for Truro to know that, later this year, we intend to add the indicators of sustainable development to the Department of the Environment's world wide web site. Increasingly, information is being published in electronic form as well as on paper.
The Government's commitment to openness goes wider. In 1992, they enacted the environmental information regulations, which give the public a right of access to environmental information held by central and local government and a large number of bodies under their control. As with all freedom of access regimes, the right of access is sensibly restricted on a small number of occasions.
It is now more than three years since the regulations came into force. Although records have not been kept of the number of requests for environmental information, there is no doubt that the regulations and the Government's code of practice on open government have resulted in a large increase in the supply of environment information to the public.
The Government have actively promoted their policy of openness. For instance, in 1992, the Department of the Environment published "Green Rights and Responsibilities", which promised the citizen a right of access to environmental information. A pamphlet explaining the new access rights under the regulations was produced in 1993, and about 190,000 have been distributed to citizens advice bureaux, libraries, local authorities and other bodies, and directly to members of the public who have asked for a copy. That was followed in 1994 by a model local environment charter, "Your Council and the Environment", which detailed, among other things, the citizen's rights to environmental information from local authorities.
I have described some of the measures that the Government have taken to disseminate environmental information to members of the public. We are not complacent, and are open to suggestions about the way in which dissemination can be improved. As I said, I shall send the hon. Member for Truro some of the publications that I mentioned.
The hon. Member drew specific attention to the solicitors Toller Beattie. I am of course aware of the correspondence in which he has been involved, and the considerable correspondence in which the firm has been involved. I am aware that that firm has made very many requests of my Department for environmental information over the past two years. I understand that it has similarly requested environmental information from other Departments, the Environment Agency and local authorities.
Its requests of my Department have been addressed to a number of different branches and directorates. As the hon. Member for Truro said, the firm has particularly requested information on water pollution policy. One section alone of my Department's water and land directorate has dealt with almost 90 letters that have been addressed or referred to it in the past 21 months. I concede that not all those responses have been within the time limit specified within the regulations. That is perhaps regrettable, but there has been a large volume of correspondence. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that only comparatively rarely has information been refused, in accordance with the legitimate exceptions provided for in the regulations.
I understand that my Department has offered to hold a meeting with Toller Beattie to discuss its requirements for environmental information. I think that that would be a

sensible way to proceed. I appreciate that Toller Beattie is seeking information on bathing waters, to which it may or may not be entitled.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Truro would be interested, as would his constituents—I am not sure whether Toller Beattie would be—in the most recent statistics relating to bathing water quality in the south-west. Speaking from memory, I think that the statistics show a picture of improvement. The hon. Gentleman is not dissenting, so that suggests that that is the case. His constituents, and possibly Toller Beattie, have something to welcome there. I will let the hon. Gentleman have information relating to that.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I hope that the Minister will feel able to respond to the question of the information tribunal.

Mr. Clappison: I am afraid that, for somebody seeking more information about the environment, the hon. Gentleman's Adjournment motion was not a good start. It did not contain the necessary information. It states that the hon. Gentleman wished
to raise the subject of the availability of environmental information.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned tribunals during his speech, which I will read with interest. I will also read the interesting and complex legal arguments that he advanced. From what he said, I think that he has had his answer already in another place. Perhaps, on this occasion, a better start could have been made to seeking environmental information.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Ten o'clock.